I 111th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 5276 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 11, 2010 Mr. Smith of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Akin, Mr. Alexander, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Carter, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Cao, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Costello, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Fortenberry, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Inglis, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Jones, Mr. Jordan of Ohio, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Latta, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Marchant, Mr. McCaul, Mr. McCotter, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Olson, Mr. Pence, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Scalise, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Souder, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, and Mr. Broun of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce A BILL To ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.

1.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2010.

2.

Findings

Congress makes the following findings: (1)At least by 20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain. (2)There is substantial evidence that by 20 weeks after fertilization, unborn children draw away from certain stimuli in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain. (3)Anesthesia is routinely administered to unborn children who have developed 20 weeks or more after fertilization who undergo prenatal surgery. (4)There is substantial evidence that the abortion methods most commonly used 20 weeks or more after fertilization cause substantial pain to an unborn child, whether by dismemberment, poisoning, penetrating or crushing the skull, or other methods. Examples of abortion methods used 20 weeks or more after fertilization include, but are not limited to the following: (A)The dilation and evacuation (D and E) method of abortion is commonly performed in the second trimester of pregnancy. In a dilation and evacuation abortion, the unborn child’s body parts are grasped with a long-toothed clamp. The fetal body parts are then torn from the body and pulled out of the vaginal canal. The remaining body parts are grasped and pulled out until only the head remains. The head is then grasped and crushed in order to remove it from the vaginal canal. (B)Partial-birth abortion is an abortion in which the abortion practitioner delivers an unborn child’s body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child’s skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing the delivery of the dead infant, and as further defined in section 1531 of title 18, United States Code. (5)Expert testimony confirms that by 20 weeks after fertilization an unborn child may experience substantial pain even if the woman herself has received local analgesic or general anesthesia. (6)Medical science is capable of reducing such pain through the administration of anesthesia or other pain-reducing drugs directly to the unborn child. (7)There is a valid Federal Government interest in preventing or reducing the infliction of pain on sentient creatures. Examples of this are laws governing the use of laboratory animals and requiring pain-free methods of slaughtering livestock, which include, but are not limited to the following: (A)Section 2 of the Act commonly known as the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 (Public Law 85–765; 7 U.S.C. 1902) states, No method of slaughter or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public policy of the United States unless it is humane. Either of the following two methods of slaughtering and handling are hereby found to be humane—(i)in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or (ii)by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering. . (B)Section 13(a)(3) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2143(a)(3)) sets the standards and certification process for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals. This includes having standards with respect to animals in research facilities that include requirements— (i)for animal care, treatment, and practices in experimental procedures to ensure that animal pain and distress are minimized, including adequate veterinary care with the appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic, tranquilizing drugs, or euthanasia; (ii)that the principal investigator considers alternatives to any procedure likely to produce pain to or distress in an experimental animal; and (iii)in any practice which could cause pain to animals— (I)that a doctor of veterinary medicine is consulted in the planning of such procedures; (II)for the use of tranquilizers, analgesics, and anesthetics; (III)for pre-surgical and post-surgical care by laboratory workers, in accordance with established veterinary medical and nursing procedures; (IV)against the use of paralytics without anesthesia; and (V)that the withholding of tranquilizers, anesthesia, analgesia, or euthanasia when scientifically necessary shall continue for only the necessary period of time. (C)Section 495 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289d) directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the National Institutes of Health, to establish guidelines for research facilities as to the proper care and treatment of animals, including the appropriate use of tranquilizers, analgesics, and other drugs, except that such guidelines may not prescribe methods of research. Entities that conduct biomedical and behavioral research with National Institutes of Health funds must establish animal care committees which must conduct reviews at least semiannually and report to the Director of such Institutes at least annually. If the Director determines that an entity has not been following the guidelines, the Director must give the entity an opportunity to take corrective action, and, if the entity does not, the Director must suspend or revoke the grant or contract involved. (8)There is a valid Federal Government interest in preventing harm to developing human life at all stages. Examples of this include regulations protecting fetal human subjects from risks of harm or discomfort in federally funded biomedical research, 45 C.F.R. 102(i) and 45 C.F.R. 46.201 et seq.

3.

Amendment to the Public Health Service Act

The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: .

4.

Preemption

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law to the extent that such State law establishes, implements, or continues in effect greater protections for unborn children from pain than the protections provided under this Act and the amendments made by this Act.

5.

Severability

The provisions of this Act shall be severable. If any provision of this Act, or any application thereof, is found unconstitutional, that finding shall not affect any provision or application of the Act not so adjudicated.