When we win back the House maybe women will be as important as food - or more precisely the companies that process and distribute food `products'.
I caught the opening statement for debate on amendments to the food labeling bill made by Phil Gingrey (R-GA) on Wednesday. For some reason, my mind wandered. I imagined a country that put women's health care on the same level of importance as food manufacturers' interests. It's amazing how only a few word changes create a whole new world. One where all of the concern over confusion created by different state rules was transferred to women's health:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 710 "If Only" and the underlying bill, H.R. 4167 "Don't I Wish", the National Food Women's Health Care Uniformity Act of 2005.
Mr. Speaker, today the House will resume consideration of the National Food Women's Health Care Uniformity Act of 2005 after having conducted general debate on the overall bill last Thursday, and this rule will allow us to move forward with the consideration of several amendments, most which are Democratic-sponsored amendments.
As I mentioned last week, currently food women's health care regulation is composed of a variety of different and sometimes inconsistent State requirements. Collectively, this hodgepodge of regulations not only inhibits interstate commerce, but it also drives up the cost for consumers women.
Mr. Speaker, these different regulations from State to State for the same product create too many unnecessary costs and they jeopardize the well-being of consumers women nationwide. Make no mistake, businesses women's health care providers cannot simply and completely absorb these unnecessary and additional costs, and therefore the consumers women across this Nation, they are the ones who absorb the expense for labeling inconsistencies misleading or inaccurate information requirements.
Without question, lower-income citizens women truly feel the brunt of any additional cost to their food health bill. Feeding one's family health care is not optional, and therefore any reduction to the cost of food health care will lower the cost of food health care products and help to ensure food health care on for every table woman regardless of income.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not designed to deprive the public of life- or health-saving knowledge but, rather, to ensure that all consumers women regardless of geography have this knowledge. If the Department of Health, as an example, in New York learns that a candy bar a day can give you tooth decay Surgical abortion is one of the safest types of medical procedures, then the citizens women of Georgia Arkansas as well as the citizens women from each and every State should have access to that same knowledge through the FDA. This simply makes sense and has the potential to prevent future illnesses and save lives.
Further, while I have already spoken at length about the overall benefits of this bill, I would like to discuss one particular criticism made by the opponents. I have heard some say this bill is an assault on States rights. Well, I am an ardent supporter of States rights and I can attest this legislation is not designed to step on any State's toes. This bill does, however, guarantee all citizens women access to the same information and warnings concerning their food health care while ensuring States not only can petition for their labeling misinformation requirement to be made part of the national standard, but they also can obtain a waiver for their State's requirement even though it need not be applicable to the other 49 is medically unnecessary and insulting to women.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4167 "Don't I Wish" is a commonsense piece of legislation that not only seeks to ensure nationwide knowledge of potentially lifesaving information but also to drive down costs for all consumers women.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule and move forward with a thoughtful debate on the amendments and support final passage of the underlying legislation.
I realize this is as much of a pipe dream as the thought that anyone will read this diary, considering I'm posting on a Sunday morning. Still the exercise does help to expose the vapid nature of his argument.