HCONRES-65-119
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.
Sponsored by Nikema Williams (D-GA)
What it does
This non-binding concurrent resolution would express the sense of Congress. It would recognize a role for state and local governments in meeting U.S. treaty obligations, condemn the criminalization of abortion and of pregnancy outcomes, affirm that access to abortion and related health care is a human right, and urge states to repeal abortion restrictions and criminal laws. It would create no new law, spending, or enforceable requirement, and it is not presented to the President.
Who benefits
State and local officials who have passed resolutions supporting abortion access (such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Austin, and Fulton County) and would receive formal congressional endorsement. Advocacy organizations working on abortion access and human rights treaty compliance. Supporters of repealing state abortion bans, who gain a congressional statement of position. Any practical effect on pregnant patients and providers would be indirect and depends on state action.
Who is hurt
No group is directly burdened, since the resolution is non-binding. State officials and residents who support abortion restrictions may view it as federal pressure against their laws and policies. Opponents of describing abortion access as a human right, or of using international treaty bodies to guide domestic law, may object to its framing. Congressional floor time and committee attention would also be used on a statement with no legal effect.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that after Dobbs, more than a dozen states banned abortion, and that the resolution's cited data (including prosecutions in at least 412 pregnancy-related cases and reports of delayed emergency care) show real harm from criminalization. They contend that Congress should affirm that states and localities share responsibility for U.S. treaty obligations, citing the UN Human Rights Committee's 2023 recommendations. They argue a non-binding statement lets Congress express this position without overriding state authority.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Dobbs returned abortion policy to states and voters, and that a congressional resolution urging repeal of democratically enacted state laws disregards that decision. They contend that the resolution misreads the Supremacy Clause, since the treaties it cites are generally not self-executing and do not create a domestic right to abortion. They also argue it treats UN committee recommendations as authoritative and ignores the interests of unborn children that state laws are designed to protect.
Constitutional context
The resolution cites the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI, cl. 2), but treaties generally bind domestically only when self-executing or implemented by statute (Medellín v. Texas, 2008), and the resolution itself has no legal force. Under Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), abortion regulation is left to the states and their legislatures, and Congress's non-binding urging does not alter that allocation. Any federal mandate on states would raise Commerce Clause and anti-commandeering concerns (Murphy v. NCAA, 2018).
Checks and balances
Congress expresses a policy view without binding anyone, and a concurrent resolution is not presented to the President; states keep full authority over their abortion laws, and courts are not affected.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously passed non-binding resolutions on abortion and related health topics, such as resolutions marking Roe v. Wade anniversaries, none of which changed state law.