WASHINGTON, DC: Today, Congresswoman Jen Kiggans (VA-02) announced she has introduced the Orally Taken Contraception Act of 2023 alongside Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01) in order to increase access to over-the-counter birth control. Last week, in a landmark decision, the FDA approved the first-ever over-the-counter oral contraceptives to be sold without a prescription.
“As a primary healthcare provider, I strongly support expanding access to contraception,” said Congresswoman Kiggans. “I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing this commonsense bill to help make oral birth control available over the counter. Birth control not only prevents unwanted pregnancies but is also an important aspect of healthcare for women. I will continue to be an advocate for increased access to contraception and for ensuring women have the resources they need to choose life.”
“We must streamline the process for accessing over-the-counter contraceptives,” said Congresswoman Miller-Meeks. “As a physician and former Iowa Director of Public Health, I recognize the need for increased and consistent access to contraceptives. The Orally Taken Contraception Act of 2023 provides options for women seeking preventative contraceptive therapies and is a significant step forward for health care.”
Specifically, the Orally Taken Contraception Act of 2023 requires the FDA to send guidance to manufacturers on how to submit successful over-the-counter applications for oral contraceptives, expands access to over-the-counter contraceptives by increasing regulatory clarity to promote competition, and provides women with options for preventative health care. Additional original cosponsors of the bill include Lori Chavez-DeRemer (OR-05), María Elvira Salazar (FL-27), Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA-14), Young Kim (CA-40), Diana Harshbarger (TN-01), and Stephanie Bice (OK-05).
You can read the full bill text here.
Paul Plante says
While the good Congresswoman Kiggins is touting her many accomplishments as a member of the Unites States House of Representatives, perhaps she could find a moment in her very busy schedule to explain to WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE exactly why it was that she chose to vote against an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorization bill offered by Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill. that would have required the inept Biden Secretary of Transportation Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg to report his flight records publicly.
For the record, and by way of background, so the readers of the Cape Charles Mirror can understand the implications of Congresswoman Kiggins vote to essentially protect Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg, he has faced serious concerns on Capitol Hill in the wake of a watchdog group’s report that he made excessive use of government aircraft when cheaper commercial flights were available.
After Congresswoman Kiggins joined Democrats to kill the amendment, Caitlin Sutherland, the executive director for watchdog group Americans for Public Trust (APT), told Fox News Digital, “We are disappointed that Representative Miller’s important amendment failed,” and “after Secretary Pete Buttigieg was caught excessively using a taxpayer-funded private jet, his department doubled down and is refusing to release the true cost of these flights.”
Sutherland continued: “That’s why we’re suing the FAA because it is the right of the American people to have these records and they deserve transparency,” and yes, people, we most certainly do, which is exactly why Congresswoman Kiggins owes ALL of us an explanation as to why she voted to continue a COVER-UP in the matter.
Continuing with the background, APT brought the issue to light earlier this year, finding that Buttigieg had taken 18 flights using taxpayer-funded jets between early 2021 and last Fall, with the Washington Post reporting that the flight costs were $41,905.20 based on Transportation Department numbers.
APT executive director Caitlin Sutherland told Fox News Digital earlier this year that “Everyday Americans have faced unprecedented flight cancelations and disruptions, but Buttigieg has continued to fly private, even on a Coast Guard plane and even when commercial options were readily available,” and the Transportation Department’s Inspector General launched an investigation in February in response to a complaint by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, also raised the issue of Buttigieg’s use of government planes in a January letter.
“These include flights to what some describe as a list of presidential swing states, as well as a flight to New York for a radio interview and two brief meetings, one with the president of the ACLU and another with DOT employees.”
” It is difficult to see how these trips, and perhaps others, required use of expensive non-commercial travel.”
“For example, many commercial travel options exist between Washington and New York.”
“Moreover, radio interviews presumably can be done by calling in to the program or picked up a phone to talk to, create questions about whether you really required the use of a private jet, especially as you call on Americans to sacrifice to reduce carbon emission,” Grassley wrote.
So why then, in the face of all this, did Congresswoman Kiggins vote against the disclosure amendment?
Perhaps she would be good enough to use the Cape Charles Mirror, the only GRAND PALLADIUM of liberty we have left in this sorry nation, to let us know.