Commending State and local governments for championing reproductive rights as human rights.
- Bill Number
- H.Con.Res. 65
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Health
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-12-10: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Last Updated
- 2025-12-20T09:06:51Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
This concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 65) aims to commend state and local governments for their efforts to protect reproductive rights as human rights, particularly in response to the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned federal protections for abortion access. It highlights the U.S.'s international human rights obligations and urges action to address restrictions on abortion and related care.
Key Provisions Outlined
The resolution consists of an extensive preamble detailing the background, harms of abortion restrictions, and examples of state/local actions, followed by a resolved section with six main points:
- Recognition of state and local roles: Acknowledges that state and local governments should help ensure U.S. compliance with international treaties (e.g., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and Convention against Torture).
- Condemnation of criminalization: Strongly opposes laws that criminalize abortion, pregnancy outcomes, or related circumstances.
- Affirmation of healthcare access: States that all people deserve high-quality healthcare, including reproductive services, without fear of punishment.
- Reproductive rights as human rights: Explicitly declares reproductive rights, including abortion, as fundamental human rights.
- Urging repeal of harmful restrictions: Calls on states to repeal laws that impose barriers to abortion access for pregnant individuals.
- Specific urgings to states: Encourages states to repeal abortion criminalization laws, prohibit prosecutions related to abortions or pregnancy outcomes, and protect human rights overall.
Significant Changes to Existing Law Introduced
As a concurrent resolution, this measure is non-binding and does not create, amend, or repeal any laws. It expresses Congress's sense but introduces no enforceable changes to federal, state, or local statutes. It references the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution), which makes ratified treaties the "supreme Law of the Land," but does not alter legal interpretations or obligations.
Potential Impacts
- On government agencies: May encourage federal agencies (e.g., Department of State, Health and Human Services) to align policies with international human rights standards, potentially influencing funding or guidance on reproductive health. It could pressure state governments to review and repeal restrictive laws, though without legal force.
- On citizens: Highlights risks to pregnant individuals, especially marginalized groups (e.g., low-income, people of color, LGBTQIA+ youth, rural residents), from barriers like travel requirements, criminal prosecutions, and delayed care, which have led to increased maternal mortality and clinic closures. It promotes awareness and could support advocacy for better access to abortion and related services.
- On international relations: Reinforces U.S. commitments to UN treaties and critiques actions like the attempted boycott of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process. This could improve the U.S.'s global human rights standing by signaling domestic support for treaty compliance, but it may strain relations with countries or U.S. states enforcing strict abortion bans.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- State and local governments: Praised for actions like resolutions in cities (e.g., Philadelphia, Austin, Baltimore) and counties (e.g., Fulton County, Georgia) that affirm reproductive rights; urged to expand access and repeal bans.
- Pregnant individuals and marginalized communities: Includes women, low-income people, racial/ethnic minorities, Indigenous people, LGBTQIA+ individuals, youth, immigrants, incarcerated persons, and those in rural areas, who face disproportionate harms from restrictions.
- Healthcare providers: Affected by fears of prosecution leading to care delays, clinic closures, and shortages of specialists; the resolution condemns criminalization of providers.
- International bodies: UN committees (e.g., Human Rights Committee, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) whose recommendations are referenced and supported.
- Advocacy organizations: Groups like Planned Parenthood, impacted by funding cuts and restrictions, benefit from the resolution's affirmations.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal implications: Emphasizes that international treaties bind all U.S. government levels under the Supremacy Clause, potentially supporting challenges to state laws that conflict with treaty obligations (e.g., rights against cruel treatment or discrimination). However, it does not create new legal precedents and avoids direct court challenges.
- Constitutional implications: Balances federalism (state authority over abortion post-Dobbs) with treaty supremacy, arguing states must uphold human rights standards. It critiques emergency care exceptions under laws like the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA, a federal law requiring hospitals to stabilize patients in emergencies) for inconsistent application.
- Political implications: Serves as a partisan statement (introduced by Democrats) to rally support for reproductive rights amid ongoing debates, especially with examples of local progress in Democratic-leaning areas. It could influence midterm elections or future legislation by framing abortion bans as human rights violations, while highlighting U.S. evasion of UN reviews as a risky precedent for global accountability.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]
Cosponsors (116)
Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12], Rep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2], Rep. Casar, Greg [D-TX-35], Rep. McClellan, Jennifer L. [D-VA-4], Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8], Rep. Velázquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28], Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30], Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37], Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12], Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-24], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6], Rep. Sewell, Terri A. [D-AL-7], Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2], Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2], Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8], Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3], Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-14], Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36], Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50], Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9], Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13], Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1], Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4], Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Vargas, Juan [D-CA-52], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9], Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26], Rep. Escobar, Veronica [D-TX-16], Rep. García, Jesús G. "Chuy" [D-IL-4], Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33], Rep. Schneider, Bradley Scott [D-IL-10], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4], Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9], Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17] and 66 more
Recent Actions
- 2025-12-10: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-12-10: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-12-10: Submitted in House
- 2025-12-10: Submitted in House
Bill Versions
- Commending State and local governments for championing reproductive rights as human rights. — issued 2025-12-10 — PDF (16 pages)