Removing Deadline for Ratification of Equal Rights Amendment

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin for a parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary Inquiry

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting, the discussion on the floor today. It has been interesting on both sides to hear the different aspects of why this bill is on the floor, why we are doing it, why we shouldn't be doing it, and many things. It has been interesting, the discussion, if you go from a strictly number-of-States category.

What has been interesting is my colleagues across the aisle have talked about that there are now 38 States, but they fail to mention 5 States that rescinded their votes. Five States would put you under 38.

What was interesting to me in the Rules Committee the other night, the argument was that, if they rescind it, it is not valid to rescind, yet you can add States after the time limit is up. That is an interesting argument to make if you are actually looking at it from the perspective of if they rescind it within the timeframe yet passed it after the timeframe, that that is okay.

Then I heard one of my colleagues actually mentioned the fact that, if we passed it in here today, that this would now become part of the process, along with the State of Virginia ratifying it, it is now part of our Constitution.

I am sure this was just a euphoric discussion about how this would actually go about, but they were also forgetting the Senate is involved in this. It is amazing.

I was really worried at one point in the discussion that it was said on multiple occasions that there was no protection in the Constitution for women. I was almost scared for a moment that the 14th Amendment had been repealed and I didn't know it.

It is in there and still is in there. I checked just a few minutes ago. It is safe.

It is interesting to determine, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the foremost architects in looking at this bill even in the 1970s, coming forward, has said: If you want to do this, start over. Do it the proper way.

As my chairman has said earlier, basically, a deadline should not get in the way of what we want. A deadline should not get in the way of what I want to have happen. That is becoming more and more of a concern in this body, that the rules and parliamentary procedures don't matter if it interferes with what we want.

But, at the end of the day, the question really becomes: Why are we doing this? Why are we bringing this forth when there is absolutely no legal precedent, no constitutional precedent, no anything out there-- including some of the founders who actually started this whole process 40-plus years ago, who said this is not the way you do it.

The reason I know that that is a concern is because some of those who have actually said this have been criticized in the media from the perspective of supporters of the ERA to say Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments have now killed the ERA, or effectively done it. The reason is because she is speaking the truth about this issue.

We disagree on most everything from a legal perspective, but on this one, we happen to agree, and she has laid forth clearly what should happen here.

But let me also say--and it has been talked about a great deal, so I think we just need to come to the real scenario why this is happening. It is not that we believe it will actually happen. For anybody here who believes that today is actually going to put it in part of the Constitution, that is not going to happen.

So what is it? It is a political nod to the understanding of those who are speaking for this.

As we have heard earlier, NARAL Pro-Choice America:

With its ratification, the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion by clarifying that the sexes have equal rights, which would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.

Also, NARAL:

The ERA will support protecting women's right to abortion. With five anti-choice Justices on the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade on the chopping block, it is more important than ever we codify women's bodily autonomy in our lives.

Codirector of Reproaction:

Abortion restrictions amount to sex discrimination because they single out people for unfair treatment on the basis of sex.

The senior counsel of National Women's Law Center:

The ERA would help create a basis for challenging abortion restrictions.

This is what this is actually about. This is what the basis has needed because there has been a shifting in this country to understand that, in our opinion--in the opinion of many-- abortion is simply murder in the womb. It is not about life.

It is interesting, we are talking about the rights of women today-- which, again, this bill doesn't have anything to do with--but we are not concerned if the young women in the womb are even able to have a birthday. That is not a concern.

So what would happen from these folks who are supporting your resolution today? Why do they want it? Because it gives a claim, from start to finish, unfettered abortion.

So what does that mean? That means let's bring back partial-birth abortion, which, if I have to remind anybody here, means the delivery of the child all the way until the moment the chin comes almost out, and then actually crushing their skull. That is what that is.

If that is a right we are protecting, I don't want any part of it, and neither do most Americans. They don't want a part of it. But that is one of those restrictions that will be laid back.

It would also continue to allow unlimited abortions in any State for any reason, including sex selection.

It is interesting that we would talk about this today, the ERA, and use this, yet a family could choose to abort a child because it is a male or a female. Let's be honest about this.

But the bottom line for me, what really bothers me the most about when it is unlimited, unfettered access to abortion that this bill opens up, if it were to have passed, is one that hits close to home for me.

You see, a European country recently stated that a geneticist in Iceland said: We have almost basically eradicated Down syndrome people.

I thought to myself, for a second: That would be great. I mean, if we could actually remove Down syndrome and help those and cure that, that would be an amazing medical discovery for all people. Except there is one portion.

Do you know how they have done it? Through genetic testing and killing the children in the womb. They don't even let them have a birthday.

One Icelandic counselor counsels mothers as follows:

This is your life. You have the right to choose how your life will look. She said: We don't look at abortion as murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended.

Do you want to know why this has opened up, America? This is why.

And for those of us like myself who have a disabled child, I do not want to hear that we are protecting disabled rights and other rights when we are not even allowing them to be born in certain arenas.

Every day, I get a text on this phone. It is from my daughter. Jordan is 27 years old. She has spina bifida. She cannot walk and has never taken a step, and I believe it probably, given the medical condition, will not happen this side of Heaven. But she rolls and she smiles. She goes to work 3 days a week. She gets herself up early to put her clothes on and take her shower and get a bus that she calls, and she goes to work.

The folks in Sweden, do you know what they want to do? Kill her. Because she is not as valuable, as a Down syndrome child is not as valuable.

Do you want to open this Pandora's box of no abortion restrictions? Then own what you are doing.

But when Jordan texts me, she texts me: Good morning, Daddy. I love you. How was your day?

Madam Speaker, when we found out 27 years ago--a week ago, 27 years ago--that Jordan was going to have spina bifida, we were a young couple just happy that God gave us a child, and to find out that she had a disability only kept our hearts more in tune to what God had given.

My wife went to school the next week, and she was telling the teacher about what was going on. She said: We are trying to figure out where we need to go to have Jordan, help when she is born and get some more medical attention.

This person looked at her and said: You know you have choices, correct?''

And my wife said: Well, yes. There is Northside Hospital and others.

She said: No. Oh, no, dear. You don't have to go through with this. That is your choice.

In other words, as my wife looked at her and said: ``You're talking about my baby.''

You see, when we go down this path, don't flower this bill up. Look at the ones who actually talk about it and say this is an open door to abortion on demand, with no restrictions, no government interference-- in fact, government pays for it.

But before you do that, America, as we look around, I want you to think of the picture on the new Gerber baby ad of the young person with Down syndrome, who is now the face of Gerber baby food. If he was in Iceland, he would have been one of those that, as it said: Oh, we ended.

Think about my daughter, who, when we allow it out there for people who are struggling--and to get news that you have a child with a disability, that is one of the most amazingly devastating things that you can hear because you don't know what the future holds.

But what you do know is life is a gift from God, and that it is my joy to take care of her. We had 30 major surgeries before she was 5 years old, three of which were 9 hours in length. Tell me her life doesn't matter.

For someone who doesn't have the possibility of understanding, and they are given a choice because they have a disability, and somebody tells them and gets to them and says: Don't worry. Disabilities are bad. Just go ahead and end that life, and go on with your life.

This is what this opens up.

So don't give me a bill that is going nowhere for the reasons that have been given. The true reasons are found in your own supporters. The true reasons are found in what we know to be true.

When you understand what this is about, then I will stand till I have no more breath in my body for the rights of those who can't speak for themselves.

It is amazing to me that it was said: What would I be saying to my daughter if I voted against this?

I would be saying to Jordan, as I will: Jordan, the 14th Amendment is still there. Protections in law are still there. And by the way, restrictions on abortion will not be done away with, and your life matters.

So if you want a picture of this, picture Jordan.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source