Quigley Fights for Right to Choose for Women in DC
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Representatives Mike Quigley (IL-05) fought against efforts to restrict the right to choose for women living in the District of Columbia during consideration of the FY14 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill. Rep. Quigley is serving in his first year on the Appropriations Committee and sits on the Subcommittee for Financial Services and General Government.
"When it comes to state's rights on gay marriage and guns, some of my friends stand up in strong support of a federalist system, but when it comes to a woman's right to choose, maybe it's okay to tell D.C. how to operate," said Rep. Quigley. "All women regardless of their economic situation have a right to choose. By taking away this funding for services for those who can't afford it, we are in effect taking away their right to that choice. However we feel about any of these issues, as politicians we shouldn't be allowed to deny a woman's health care coverage just because she's poor. And that's what this bill does."
To watch Rep. Quigley's speech, please click here. A full transcript is included below.
Rep. Quigley is a staunch advocate for comprehensive reproductive health care and an ardent supporter of a woman's right to choose. A member of the Pro-Choice Caucus, he has previously spoken out against efforts to ban abortions after 20 weeks and legislation that would make it harder for victims of rape and incest to receive abortion care. He has also supported requiring employers to cover contraception in basic benefits packages.
TRANSCRIPT
It's just now after almost four and a half years that I moved out of my office and started living in D.C., and it gives you thought of what it's like to be here. I mean I'm not a permanent resident, but I think we should respect the fact – and this gets to my bill here – I like spending time here, but I'm not sure I would like to live here. I'm not sure how any of us would like it if our state had a federal government dictating the way we do – sometimes in this bill unfortunately.
Let me put it this way, this is a bill, an appropriation bill which is dramatically about the functioning of our government. And there's a lot of us that - who have to check ourselves I think - because when it comes to state's rights on gay marriage and guns, some of my friends stand up in strong support of a federalist system, but when it comes to a woman's right to choose, maybe it's okay to tell D.C. how to operate. It's not about your views.
Now, I've read again both parties' promise or pledge to America that you see in the past ten, twenty years. They're pretty much similar in one respect and that is both parties, and they both violate this, pledge not to put controversial social bills into must pass legislation - like this. And yet we do.
I don't imagine for a second we're ever going to change our minds on those personal issues because they're so near and dear to us. But I think we're violating a major precept in what we're trying to do here as individuals and as parties to do this.
So, with all due respect, the ban on D.C. abortion services is seriously harmful, all women regardless of their economic situation have a right to choose. By taking away this funding for services for those who can't afford it, we are in effect taking away their right to that choice.
However we feel about any of these issues, as politicians we shouldn't be allowed to deny a woman's health care coverage just because she's poor. And that's what this bill does.
And in conversations we've listened to just recently, if we're going to come to compromises, they have to be about meeting those fiscal challenges. We recognize how tough those choices are going to be to reach a compromise to get back to regular order. All I'm saying in this statement is let's not make it any more difficult by putting those issues into this bill. Thank you, and I yield back.
###
