What is House Resolution 7?

A breakdown of the GOP's terrifying move to introduce religion and take away decisions in women's healthcare.

Photo by Aiden Frazier on Unsplash

Make no mistake about it; House Resolution 7 is the precursor to formal Congressional support of a national abortion ban and the return of women as second class citizens. They won’t call it a ban. But, if this resolution is any clue, the GOP wants it to be nearly impossible to access a plethora of medical procedures for women.

The resolution, authored by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-5) and co-sponsored by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA-3) seems like it has good intentions if you don’t actually read it. Titled “Recognizing the importance of access to comprehensive, high-quality, life-affirming medical care for women of all ages” leans itself to the impression that it aims to protect women’s health care. It does anything but that.

When you read the text of the bill it becomes obvious that the ideals presented are plainly sinister.

First, we need to establish that this is currently not a piece of legislation that is up for consideration. Resolutions can fall into three categories and are not always binding the way legislation is. The first is a simple resolution, meant to convey a formal opinion of the Chamber it originated in. It does not make law. The second is a concurrent resolution. This is a resolution that is passed in both Chambers, however, it does not need the president’s signature to take effect. An example of this is the formation of a joint committee. It is used primarily for internal Congressional business. The third category a resolution can fall in, is the joint resolution. Joint resolutions can become law. They are resolutions adopted by both the House and the Senate that go to the President’s desk for a signature, and have the same effect as law.

Currently, it does not appear that a resolution with similar language has been introduced in the Senate.

The House version of this resolution is terrifying.

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the importance of access to comprehensive, high-quality, life-affirming medical care for women of all ages.

Whereas women of all ages should have access to comprehensive, convenient, compassionate, life-affirming, high-quality medical services;

Whereas all women should feel empowered and equipped with the knowledge to listen to their body and advocate for their health;

Whereas health care for women should emphasize the whole woman, including her physical, mental, and spiritual wellness;

Whereas health care for women should also address the needs of men, families, and communities as they relate to women’s health care;

Whereas health care centers should include access to social services that empower women to care for their health;

Whereas Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers is a consortium of centers that serves as an example of the high-quality, comprehensive, life-affirming care that women deserve;

Whereas every Pro Women’s Healthcare Center certified clinic has a licensed medical professional;

Whereas every Pro Women’s Healthcare Center offers comprehensive health services, including well-woman exams, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, breast exams, pregnancy testing, prenatal and pregnancy care, miscarriage support, fertility awareness instruction, infertility consultation, and onsite or nearby, direct referrals for material, emotional, practical, and spiritual resources; and

Whereas Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers has certified health care centers nationwide that meet its standards for high-quality, life-affirming care and continue to do so: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its support for women nationwide to have access to comprehensive, convenient, compassionate, life-affirming, high-quality health care; and

2) recognizes the high standards established by Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers consortium as standards worth implementing nationwide.

Starting off strong, with the title, which includes the phrase “of all ages”. Women who are below or above the age where one can have a child are also included in this resolution. This isn’t just an anti-abortion bill. This isn’t just a pro-birth bill. Every woman, whatever the age or cycle of life they find themselves in, are covered in this blatant attempt to upend healthcare decision making.

The first section should immediately raise red flags. “life-affirming” is not there by accident. It is a well known code phrase for anti-abortion sentiment. The only life it aims to affirm is that of the fetus.

The second section seems innocuous enough. Who wouldn’t want women to feel empowered and educated? Of course, I suppose that depends on where that education comes from. But, we’ll get to that.

The third section makes it very clear that the authors consider “spiritual wellness” a priority. This is, much like ‘life affirming’, a code word for Christian pro-life ideals. And they want “spiritual wellness” emphasized. Because this bill isn’t about health care. It is about the religious right and their attack on body autonomy.

The fourth section, is where it truly go off the rails.

“should also address the needs of men, families, and communities as they relate to women’s health care”

What? The needs of men, families and communities? Come again?

There were several emotions I went through as I read that, and then re-read it three more times. Because, although I am fully literate and the words are easy enough to understand…..there was no way this was a real document in the real United States House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee. The needs of men? In women’s health? I will spare you the obscenities that I feel rising up in my chest every time I read that.

But, it didn’t stop there. It also suggests that the needs of the community are to be considered. What are the needs of the community here? Hell, who is the community?

The “needs of a community” could be far reaching, and not always in a women’s best interest. Or in the best interest of her family….her partner …or really anyone who should have the conversations around family planning and other female specific health concerns. For example, if I need to have a procedure, I am at least talking about it with my partner, if only to fill him in. But, I am not having this conversation with Kelly at the gas station. Is there a community panel? How are they chosen? Or would I need to put an ad in the local paper for 3 weeks, like the courts make you do when you want to legally change your name? Is there a public comment time frame? Who the hell is the community, and why are their needs being considered?!?! (Sorry, I got a little worked there.) Actually, I am not sorry. This is insanity. I’m upset and if you are a woman, or know a woman, you should be too. Even if you’re a man be upset. There is nothing that says the needs of the community don’t outrank yours as well when it comes to the women in your life.

Unfortunately, the horrors of this resolution persist.

Throughout the next several sections, an organization known as Pro Women’s Health Centers is mentioned repeatedly. “Pro Women”; it sounds good right? Every healthcare system should be pro-women. This is anything but that.

Pro-Women’s Health Centers (PWHC) are not easy to find information on. That was the first red flag. After some digging, I still was not able to locate a direct web-site. However, I was able to find an article from 2018, in the Arlington Catholic Herald, celebrating its creation.

“On the eve of the 45th annual March for Life in Washington, medical professionals from around the country gathered to announce the creation of Pro-Women’s Healthcare Centers (PWHC), a consortium of medical centers that adheres to a set of standards and values. Its mission is to provide its patients comprehensive, convenient, compassionate, high-quality medical services and access to social services.

“The idea of bringing together little pockets of incredibly great care under a common standard has been a dream and something that the pro-life movement absolutely needs, especially now,” said Dr. John Bruchalski, founder of Tepeyac OB-GYN and Divine Mercy Care, the education and fundraising side of the practice.”

There is also a now defunct page on the National Association of Catholic Nurses web-site, an organization that stresses “spiritual nourishment” and “integration of faith and health”.

The final line of the resolution states that the PWHC model should be implemented nationwide.

What this resolution effectively does, is formally declare that it would be the opinion of the House of Representatives that women are not only unable to solely make decisions for their healthcare, but that even the conversations with their partner are not enough. The community must also be considered. The amount of questions surrounding what constitutes the community and what needs they would have is enormous and unknown. It also expresses a desire for women’s healthcare to be managed by a hyper-religious and anti-abortion healthcare consortium.

I’ll give you a second, so the “What in the Gilead?!” feeling of nausea can subside.

Without a resolution in the Senate, it truly means very little in terms of changing the lives of everyday American women. That isn’t the point of it. The point is to make it clear that the opinion of the House of Representatives is that women should be subject to religious indoctrination and the opinions of not just men, but strangers in their healthcare, completely removing body autonomy, not just in pregnancy, but in all healthcare decisions at “any age”

Rep. Biggs' introduction of such a resolution should come as very little shock. He has also re-introduced the “ultrasound bill”, which mandated that any woman seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and the ability to view the results before deciding on abortion. This legislation hinges on the idea that 80% of “abortion leaning women” who view their ultrasound, ultimately decide against having one, a statistic that is questionable at best. This was previously introduced in the 118th Congress, but failed to leave the House Energy and Commerce Committee for a full floor vote. Currently, the bill has two co-sponsors.

It should be noted that the United States House of Representatives is notorious for what I like to call “statement” work. These pieces of legislation and resolutions rarely make it out of committee. They do, however make headlines. If by some small miracle they make it to the floor for a vote and even more miraculously pass, it is even rarer for the Senate to introduce and pass a companion bill or concurrent resolution.

So, while the danger in resolutions like this is never absent, it also isn’t imminent.

That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take it seriously, or that we keep watch on the nature of legislation and resolutions that will be proposed over the next two years, even if they seem to be far fetched statement pieces. It also doesn’t mean that we shouldn't talk about them, and explore the reality of what they mean if they were to be passed. Most importantly, just because a bill or resolution doesn’t seem “passable” doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t publicly shame the member who wrote it and every single co-sponsor.

There is one thing that is for certain, once it is put to paper and introduced, no matter how bad or unpopular the contents of a bill or resolution are; it becomes something that they will continue to tweak, push and introduce, until they can get it out of committee.

If it makes it out of committee, we’ll see how few of out elected officials see women as individuals, with rights. I expect that number is shockingly low. Let’s hope it doesn’t get a that far.

This Brave New World is a reader-supported publication.

Please consider becoming a subscriber, or upgrading to a paid member.

If you don’t like commitment, but would like to support my work, please consider buying me a coffee. Your support is always greatly appreciated.

As always, thank you for reading! — Courtney