Should States Be Prohibited From Restricting Women From Traveling Across State Lines to Obtain Abortions? (H.R. 8297)
Do you support or oppose this bill?
Bill Status
- 7/15/22: The House passed this bill on a 223-205 vote.
What is H.R. 8297?
This bill — Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022 — would prohibit anyone acting under state law from interfering with a person’s ability to access out-of-state abortion services. It would define “abortion services” as the use of any drugs approved to terminate pregnancies and any healthcare services related to an abortion, whether or not provided at the same time or on the same day.
Specifically, the bill would prohibit any person acting under state law from preventing, restricting, impeding, or retaliating against:
- Healthcare providers who provide legal abortion services to out-of-state residents;
- Any person or entity who helps healthcare providers to provide such services;
- Any person who travels to another state to obtain such services;
- Any person or entity who helps another person travel to another state to obtain such services; or
- The movement in interstate commerce of drugs that are approved to terminate pregnancies.
The Dept. of Justice would be authorized to enforce this bill through civil actions, and the bill would also establish a private right of action.
Argument in favor
With abortion policy falling primarily under the authority of states following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, there is a need to ensure that women can travel between states to access abortion services or to receive approved abortion drugs that were shipped across state lines.
Argument opposed
No states have enacted restrictions on women attempting to travel between states to obtain abortions as of mid-July 2022, so this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Allowing abortion drugs to be used in mail-order or telemedicine abortion services
Impact
Women seeking abortion services; states; and the DOJ.
Cost
A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.
Additional Info
In-Depth: Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX) introduced this bill to prohibit states from restricting a person’s ability to access out-of-state abortion services by traveling across state lines or receiving approved abortion drugs shipped across state lines. She said of her bill:
“In overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has set us on a dangerous path forward that jeopardizes the health and undermines the equality of people across this country. Lawmakers in several states, including my home state of Texas, are now threatening to interfere with the constitutional right of Americans to travel freely and voluntarily within the United States for the purpose of obtaining abortion care. These efforts violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens. These efforts to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights must be stopped, and Congress has the power and the responsibility to do so. This bill is essential to protecting the health and equality of all Americans, and I hope to see it move quickly through the Congress.”
Lead cosponsor Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-WA) added:
“The Supreme Court may have ripped away a woman’s right to reproductive healthcare, but they cannot stop a woman’s right to travel. This bill simply reaffirms a Constitutional right, and I call on my Republican colleagues who say they support freedom to vote yes.”
Another lead cosponsor, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), added:
"As emboldened right-wing forces try to make it a crime for women to obtain out-of-state health care services, and as the Supreme Court discards long-settled constitutional principles, Congress must protect the constitutional right to travel. This important legislation defends the time-honored right to travel across state lines, including for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. We will not allow extremists to dismantle this basic freedom.”
As of mid-July 2022, no states have enacted bans on interstate travel by women seeking an abortion across state lines. In his opinion concurring with the majority’s decision in Dobbs, Justice Brett Kavanaugh cast doubt on the constitutionality of restrictions on traveling between states to obtain abortions, writing:
“(A)s I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.”
House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) criticized Democrats for fearmongering about abortion policies, saying:
"It is already unconstitutional to prevent a woman from traveling between states. The pro-life movement does not support and has always rejected criminalizing and punishing women, period. State laws currently in effect have exceptions to save the life of the mother. And pro-life laws do not prevent women from getting the care they need in case of miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies."
Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) spoke on the floor in opposition to this bill and told Democrats to “stop lying” about the need for this bill, adding:
“The notion that women will somehow be stopped at checkpoints in some 1984 scenario, this is insane and political fearmongering at its best, and you know that. You know that.”
House Rules Committee Ranking Member Tom Cole (R-OK) noted that this bill could create problems for state licensure standards for healthcare providers due to its provisions on mail-order or telemedicine abortion services:
“H.R. 8297 would prohibit states from imposing limitations on interstate abortion services. But this bill, too, is deeply misguided. It would have the effect of preventing states from adopting commonsense protections for the unborn, such as provisions banning mail-order or telemedicine abortion services. It creates serious questions about state licensure requirements, not simply those regarding abortion. And it will potentially limit the rights of parents by creating a cause of action for outsiders to interfere with the parent-child relationship.”
This legislation has the support of 180 cosponsors, all of whom are Democrats.
Tell your reps how to vote on this bill!
Media:
- Sponsoring Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX) Press Release
- House Rules Committee Republicans Press Release (Opposed)
- Bill Text
Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: iStock.com / KeithBinns)
The Latest
-
How To Help Civilians in UkraineHeavy shelling and fighting have caused widespread death, destruction of homes and businesses, and severely damaged read more... Public Safety -
The Latest: Israel Evacuates Rafah, Palestinian Place of RefugeUpdated May 6, 2024, 12:00 p.m. EST The Israeli military is telling residents of Gaza who have sought shelter in Rafah to read more... Israel -
Trump Hush Money Trial Enters Third Week, Strategy to ‘Deny, Deny, Deny’Updated May 6, 2024, 11:00 a.m. EST The criminal trial to determine whether Trump is guilty of falsifying records to cover up a read more... Law Enforcement -
IT: Battles between students and police intensify, and... 💻 Should we regulate AI access to our private data?Welcome to Thursday, May 2nd, listeners... The battle between protesters and police intensifies on college campuses across the read more...
Climate & Consumption
Health & Hunger
Politics & Policy
Safety & Security
What gives the right to any state to prevent people going to another state for any reason? Will they have to administer pregnancy tests to any female wanting to cross state borders? Can neighboring states have medical technitions assure that all males entering their state either have full vasectomies or mandate that they take extended release anti-erection meds for you know, 'just-in-case'.
if States can regulate travel of people exiting their state, can the bordering state regulate the ptoducts and services crossing their borders into that State?
Just where and how should Stare's rights end snd nstionsl rights begin?
Reasonable, proactive legislation since the current Supreme Court decides in favor of legislation and ignores regulations and case history and precedence, the only way to protect rights is via legislation. Until this current Supreme Court is changed in some way (change in membership, rules, ethics, etc) legislation is the only thing that can be relied on.
BEFORE you people get your underwear in a bunch, THIS BILL IS NOT NECESSARY! NO STATE IS EVEN TRYING TO RESTRICT WOMEN FROM GOING TO ANOTHER STATE FOR AN ABORTION!
All this is, is to get you all fired up again.
This SHOULD NOT BE NECESSARY.
However, now it is.
We need this passed in both Houses ASAP!
No one should be restricted from going state to state, except those on parole or probation. As much as I wish abortion was completely banned, except for life of mother, rape, or incest, we cannot go down this road. It is also unconstitutional.
I swear, Democrats have nothing better to do than keep the fire going. Making problems where there aren't any. Acting like they're actually doing something for the people.
States should not have a say in women's bodily autonomy whatsoever.
It should be obvious that any of the actions that would be banned under this Act would be in violation of Interstate Commerce, but codifying the specifics into Federal law will eliminate uncertainty.
This is health care, a personal choice, and no one's business. Do not try to peanalize someone for trying to get it.
Abortion is a human right and shall not be infringed.
It's already ridiculous that government is attempting to interfere with women's physical autonomy.
Do states want to give women pregnancy tests at their borders? Seems like a big job!
I don't see states that don't have lawful gambling stopping their citizens from going to casinos out of state.
Women will not be stopped from accessing necessary healthcare, outside their state if necessary.
When did these men get their medical education & license??? The state has no business playing doctor! This country already has the worst maternal death rate of wealthy countries. It'll only get worse now with these anti women laws. Our reps are suppose to serve us not their own agenda pandering to one religion. Jewish law says a fertilized egg is part of a woman's body, not mens. Don't say, just adopt! We did that decades ago. It's not cheap!!! A young friends family recently adopted a biracial baby. It cost them (with grandparents help) over $30,000! That's thirty thousand! dollars. There are thousands of kids in foster care already that are not adopted so don't parrot that old saw.
We have the right to travel; therefore this is already forbidden. And to my knowledge no state is even attempting this. So, this isn't needed and is just political grand standing. Stop wasting our money with this nonesense.
This isn't like Europe in the 1970s where you have to show papers to cross country borders, or Russia with checkpoints. This is the United States. If this bill doesn't pass, it would lead to a divided nation, and could lead to the rest of the population to be subjected to scrutiny, documentation, and/or a burden to travel for personal or business, especially those who live in one state and work in another state.
In addition, if this bill does not pass and does not move, the Federal Government might have to react to State(s) that may pass a law prohibiting women to seek abortion in another state, which is two things: 1) violates the freedom to choose and seek medical care in any state in a country but allows men to seek care as they please, and 2) and will have to rely on the U.S. Supreme Court to make a judgment that would put our country in reversal or sideways directions.
My body, my choice. Involuntary servitude was abolished in 1868.
I support this bill. Abortion is healthcare and it should be recognized nationally. Are we not the 'United' States?
How can both democrats and republicans be so hypocritical? With this issue democrats are screaming individual rights- get the government out of this. The republicans are wanting government to be all up in that womb. With vaccines it was flipped. See this is why we look like inbred morons. The media need to stop flaming the fires on both sides! Start reporting verifiable documented facts. Can be put in historical story telling kinda way if needed. It's painful having to go listen to a news outlet to figure out what my friends are yapping on about then going to the article of the reporting agency to find their sources and trace all the information down and then explain to my friends what is actually going on.
Republicans try and bring up eagle and turtle eggs when it comes to abortions. However have no reply when faced with the question what they eat for breakfast. They have no come back when faced with knowing if a momma eagle feels threatened why she rolls and kicks the eggs out of the nest. No come back when told once the turtle covers those eggs with sand and goes back to the sea the baby turtles are on their own. Many get dug up minutes after being laid and eaten. No one's arresting that turtle for not digging a deeper hole or abandonment. When that bird kicks the eggs out of the nest; isn't that pretty much an abortion? So those talking points are a flop. I'd also like to know what kind of life they see each child living that was born unwanted. Crime News Daily channel on YouTube posts 4-6 stories a day on stories not in the main public eye. Not 1 day has happened for more than a year that I've watched has there not been a case of murdered children by parents or other family members in ever manner. 9 month old child tossed in the air like we have all seen and most have done to a baby before only to not catch the 9 month old and let him hit face first on the hardwood floor. A father did that about a week ago baby lived a few more days with the mother thinking the swollen face and crying was from teething. That's one of the nice stories. There's been women who pop their babies in microwaves. Most of the child murder cases happen in Republicans lead states. I think an abortion is way more humane than the treatment they get when forced to be born. So every Republican that says ban abortions should be on the list as the next adoptive parent ready to take on the responsibility for the children. If you force the pregnancy you should be forced to care for the child, if you can't physically take care of the child then you should have to pay child support to make sure that child has a positive quality of life. Let's cap it at 40% of your income. If you don't want to take that responsibility then you should stay out of other peoples business.
Insanity, Collins resign already You know why! 205 puritans is scary to me. What a shame a bill like this is needed. Faction bipartisanship to force cooperation and reverse "profit drives policy." Term SCOTUS. Always vote incumbents out.
This democrat party sure wants to pass a lot of unnecessary laws.For a party that wants to defund the police it seems kinda hypocritical
The Constitution guarantees equality for all citizens.
If men are allowed to travel freely between states, but women can be restricted at the state level for any reason, then that infringes upon that equality.
Unless Congress intends to take away the right to travel from all citizens, it must be upheld for ALL citizens.
You may ask, "Why is this bill necessary?"
It is important to start creating legislation making sure one day this reactionary and extremist court does NOT say under states rights it's "OK" to prevent women from cross state lines for abortions. Given Kavanaugh's statement we know it has being considered.
Remember The Threat Made by Clarence Thomas:
Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings - POLITICO
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256
He and others currently on the bench wish to impose their extremist religious views on us all. Not fighting back extremely hard now will likely mean they will impose more of the their Agenda whatever it is.
Also Remember that Samuel Alito justified his ultra extreme position by quoting at 13th & 17th century legal opinions.*
The threat to all of our rights must not be trivialized or taken lightly.
* That 13th-century law treatise Alito uses? Here’s what else it says.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/09/alito-13th-century-law-roe-opinion-snl/
Samuel Alito’s Antiabortion Inspiration: A 17th-Century Jurist Who Supported Marital Rape and Had Women Executed | Vanity Fair
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/samuel-alito-roe-v-wade-abortion-draft
Why is this bill necessary?
It is important to start creating legislation making sure one day this reactiinary and extremist court does say it's OK to prevent women from cross state lines for abortions.
Remember The Threat made by Clarence Thomas:
Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings - POLITICO
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256
He and others currently on the bench wish to impose their extremist religious views.
The threat must not be trivialized or taken lightly.