    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        PRENATAL NONDISCRIMINATION ACT
                                (PRENDA) OF 2016

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
                               AND CIVIL JUSTICE

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 4924

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 14, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-70

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                    __________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    99-783 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2016

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                       BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
        Wisconsin                        JERROLD NADLER, New York
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                ZOE LOFGREN, California
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    STEVE KING, Iowa                       Georgia
    TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 JUDY CHU, California
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     TED DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 KAREN BASS, California
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
    RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho                 HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    DOUG COLLINS, Georgia                SCOTT PETERS, California
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    KEN BUCK, Colorado
    JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
    DAVE TROTT, Michigan
    MIKE BISHOP, Michigan

               Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
            Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel

                                    ------

               Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice

                        TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman

                      RON DeSANTIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman

    STEVE KING, Iowa                     STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 JERROLD NADLER, New York
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     TED DEUTCH, Florida

                         Paul B. Taylor, Chief Counsel

                        James J. Park, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                 APRIL 14, 2016

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the
      Constitution and Civil Justice.................................     1
    The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Tennessee, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the
      Constitution and Civil Justice.................................     2
    The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
      the Judiciary..................................................    10

                                   WITNESSES

    Catherine Davis, Founding Core Member, National Black Pro-Life
      Coalition, and President, The Restoration Project
      Oral Testimony.................................................    21
      Prepared Statement.............................................    23
    Anna Higgins, J.D., Associate Scholar, Charlotte Lozier Institute
      Oral Testimony.................................................    29
      Prepared Statement.............................................    31
    Miriam Yeung, MPA, Executive Director, The National Asian Pacific
      American Women's Forum
      Oral Testimony.................................................    41
      Prepared Statement.............................................    43
    Derek McCoy, Reverend, National Clergy Relations Director, Center
      of Urban Renewal and Education
      Oral Testimony.................................................    46
      Prepared Statement.............................................    48

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Material submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative
      in Congress from the State of Tennessee, and Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.............     5
    Material submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona, and
      Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice...    12

                                    APPENDIX
                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    Addendum to the Prepared Statement of Derek McCoy, Reverend,
      National Clergy Relations Director, Center of Urban Renewal and
      Education......................................................    66
    Question for the Record submitted to Miriam Yeung, MPA, Executive
      Director, The National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum....    71
    Prepared Statement of Steven W. Mosher, President, Population
      Research Institute.............................................    73
    Prepared Statement of the National Asian Pacific American Women's
      Forum (NAPAWF).................................................    76
                            OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
              Unprinted Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    Text of H.R. ____, the ``Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of
        2016'' available at:

        http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104783

    The bill, H.R. 4924, the ``Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of
        2016''

        https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr4924/BILLS-114hr4924ih.pdf

    Supplemental material submitted by Anna Higgins, J.D., Associate
        Scholar, Charlotte Lozier Institute

        http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104783

    Material submitted by the Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in
        Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the
        Judiciary

        http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104783

    Material submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in
        Congress from the State of Tennessee, and Ranking Member,
        Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice

        http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104783

                PRENATAL NONDISCRIMINATION ACT (PRENDA) OF 2016

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016

                            House of Representatives

                       Subcommittee on the Constitution
                               and Civil Justice

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3 p.m., in room
    2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks
    (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Franks, Goodlatte, King, Gohmert,
    Jordan, Cohen, Conyers, Nadler, Deutch, and Chu.
        Staff Present: (Majority) Paul Taylor, Chief Counsel;
    Tricia White, Clerk; (Minority) James Park, Minority Counsel;
    Matthew Morgan, Professional Staff Member; and Veronica Eligan,
    Professional Staff Member.
        Mr. Franks. The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil
    Justice will come to order. Without objection the Chair is
    authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. I
    want to thank all of you for being here.
        You know, given the subject of this hearing, it seems
    appropriate to me that we all remind ourselves that the very
    bedrock foundation principle that gave birth to America in the
    first place was the conviction that all human beings are
    children of God and that they are created equal in his sight.
        Throughout America's history we have struggled to fulfill
    that conviction in our national life. It took a Civil War in
    this Nation to make the 7,000-year-old, State-sanctioned
    practice of human slavery to come to an end, and ultimately it
    did so across the world.
        American women overcame the mindless policy that deprived
    them of the right to vote in America. Then this Nation charged
    into Europe and arrested the hellish Nazi holocaust. We crushed
    the Ku Klux Klan and prevailed in the dark days of our own
    civil rights struggle.
        And so, in many ways we have made great progress in the
    area of civil rights in this country. But there is one glaring
    exception: We have overlooked unborn children and that life
    itself is the most foundational civil right of all. The result
    is that today in America between 40 and 50 percent of all
    African-American babies, virtually 1 in 2, are killed before
    they are born, which is a greater cause of death for African-
    Americans than heart disease, cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and
    violence combined.
        An Hispanic child is three times more likely to be aborted
    than a White child. A Black child is five times more likely to
    be aborted than a White child. More than 14 million African-
    American babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. It
    translates to over one-fourth of the African-American
    population in America today. When you add that to the thousands
    of little girls who have been aborted in America simply because
    they are little girls instead of little boys, these are
    travesties that should assault the mind and conscience of every
    American.
        In the course of the Committee's investigation into Planned
    Parenthood, we have discovered that it is training clinic staff
    to answer questions from patients about sex selection and race
    selection abortions. Planned Parenthood physicians are clearly
    being confronted with the issue of whether or not a child can
    knowingly be aborted when the underlying reason is
    discriminatory.
        Currently only eight States prohibit abortions for the
    reason of sex selection at some point during the pregnancy. My
    home State of Arizona also prohibits sex selection and race-
    based abortions.
        Now, the subject of the hearing today, the Prenatal
    Nondiscrimination Act, restricts sex selection abortion and
    race selection abortion, and the coercion of a women to obtain
    either. The bill holds abortionists who prey on women
    accountable for their actions while holding the women on whom
    the abortion is performed harmless under the law.
        Now, there will be those who will say that this bill has a
    much larger agenda; and let me respond simply by saying that I
    sincerely and passionately hope that they are right. I truly
    hope that the debate and passage of this bill will call all
    Americans in and outside of Congress to an inward and heartfelt
    reflection upon the humanity of unborn children and the
    inhumanity of what is being done to them in 2016 in the land of
    the free and the home of the brave.
        Across human history the greatest voices among us have
    always emphasized the critical responsibility of each of us to
    recognize and cherish the divine light of eternity shining in
    the soul of every last one of our fellow human beings.
        In 1847, Frederick Douglass said, ``Right is of no sex,
    truth is of no color, God is the father of us all and all our
    brethren.'' In Matthew 25, Jesus said, ``Inasmuch as you have
    done and one of the least of these my brethren and you have
    done it under me.'' Thomas Jefferson said, ``The care of human
    life and its happiness and not its destruction is the chief and
    only object of good government.''
        Ladies and gentlemen, I know that when the subject is
    related in any way to abortion, the doors of reason and human
    compassion in our minds and hearts often close, and the
    humanity of the unborn can oftentimes no longer be seen. But
    this is the civil rights struggle that will define our
    generation. And I hope this hearing today will begin to open
    our hearts and minds again.
        And with that, I would now yield to the Ranking Member for
    his opening statement.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that you are
    sincere about your beliefs and I know that reasonable people
    can differ and we do, but I know that you are sincere and this
    is a heartfelt position for you. Nevertheless, I am disturbed
    that we have this hearing today. And I am disturbed because of
    the fact that first I do believe--and you mentioned in your
    opening statement that somebody would mention this, and yes, I
    am going to mention it--that this is really an assault on the
    woman's right to choose and not simply anything to do with sex
    and race.
        And I am also concerned that this bill at one time was--no
    longer is, but one time had the name of Frederick Douglass in
    it and I think it besmirched the name of Frederick Douglass,
    who is one of the greatest Americans of all time. And that
    bothered me the last time we had this up and I opposed it.
        And in your opening statement you were right that our
    Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, wonderful
    documents and said something in there about all men are created
    equal, they had inalienable rights, et cetera, but that was
    words on paper because we had slaves; and it did not end with
    the Civil War. It went on in the South at least until the
    1960's and the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, Brown
    v. Board of Education.
        And it did not end there because in the South where I am
    from, which was the focus of the Voting Rights Act for good
    reason, people do not let--old times there are not forgotten
    and rarely given up. And segregation and racial injustice
    carried on into the 1970's and the 1980's and they carry on
    today. And we do not have Governors in the South now with
    interposition dripping off their lips standing in the
    schoolhouse door.
        But what we have got is Governors and legislators, not just
    in the South and as the Supreme Court did get it correct to
    some extent in the Voting Rights Act when they said it is not
    just a problem in those select States in the South, it is a
    problem all over the country and that they should not be
    specifically limited in the South, well, I do not know that
    they should have just been limited.
        The South is the worst at doing this and there may be
    problems in other parts in the country, indeed there are, with
    racial gerrymandering and impediments to people voting, but the
    South does it best. It is one of the South's deals: We have got
    barbeque, we have got good football, and we do the best job if
    you want to really thwart a person's opportunity to vote, the
    South does it.
        And so there should have been special circumstances there.
    But unfortunately it is a national problem, but the South is
    kind of the leader there. So all attempts to stop people from
    voting, which our Judiciary Committee has not taken up voting
    rights, that is where we should be looking at. We can give
    people an opportunity to vote. And if we can do things to give
    people opportunities to have a good living, have women have
    equal pay and to get jobs and get proper education, and poor
    people get education and be able to afford and well take care
    of children, you would cut down the rate of abortion in the
    African-American community.
        You are not going to do it with some bill like this. You
    are going to do it by giving African-American women better job
    opportunities and better pay and look out for them in every way
    possible so they can have a child and know they can afford it
    and that child will be brought into a house and a home with a
    mother that can take care of them.
        Those are the issues we have got to be dealing with. And I
    know that these issues--the Chairman and the members of his
    party are aware of them, but they are not bringing bills to
    deal with them. We are saying if you have a job now you are
    losing your SNAP payments. But just because you have got a job
    does not mean you do not need assistance and that you and your
    family do not need some help.
        So this bill, which is opposed by about every group that
    cares about women's choice and constitutional rights of a
    woman, is here like other bills we have had to really be an
    assault on Roe v. Wade. We have got an entire Committee set up
    to be an assault on Roe v. Wade. And yet we have got folks that
    need job training and monies for education. And we have got
    voting rights issues and we got healthcare issues. And we are
    not dealing with those things. We are not dealing with what
    causes the problem. And we really need--we are kind of picking
    these issues.
        And I understand the Chairman. The Chairman is very, very
    strong on this issue and he has got a heartfelt belief that
    really--I may be wrong, if I am wrong I do not mean it in an
    adverse way upon you--but I do not think you want abortion to
    be legal under any circumstances. And I understand your
    position, but I think women have a right to choose. I think Roe
    v. Wade was right. And I do not think we should be spending
    time on these type of issues, attack Roe v. Wade and women's
    choice; and we should be dealing with voting rights and human
    rights and civil rights, and not under the guise of using those
    issues to frame a bill and a conversation that intends to
    overrule Roe v. Wade.
        So I would like to introduce for the record a statement
    from the Black Women Reproductive Justice Organizations, they
    oppose this bill; and also one from the physicians, the
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. And
    without objection I would ask they be made part of the record.
        Mr. Franks. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         __________

        Mr. Cohen. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Franks. And I thank the gentleman and I would now yield
    to the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers of
    Michigan.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Franks. I am very
    delighted to be here with you and my good friend, Ranking
    Subcommittee Member Cohen and the highly-esteemed Judy Chu. To
    my friends here and our guests that are witnesses and our
    friends in the audience, this Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act is
    the latest attempt to erode the constitutional right to an
    abortion guaranteed by Roe v. Wade for over 40 years. Among
    other things, the bill would make it a crime for a doctor to
    perform an abortion if he or she knows that the procedure is
    being done because of the race or sex of the fetus or the race
    of one of the parents regardless of viability.
        As I noted in an earlier Congress, the 112th, when we last
    considered this bill, it is flawed and patently
    unconstitutional because it bans certain pre-viable abortions.
    The Roe case already mentioned is clear that a woman has an
    absolutely constitutional right to have an abortion prior to
    fetal viability. And this legislation is another deliberate
    attempt by anti-choice activists to undermine and ultimately
    overturn Roe.
        In addition, this measure has nothing to do with civil
    rights. For instance, the bill proponents offer no evidence
    that women are choosing race-selective abortions. Indeed, these
    proponents do not even bother to make the claim that African-
    American women, for example, choose to abort their fetuses
    because the fetus or one of the parents is African-American.
    They do not make this argument because it is absurd on its
    face. And yet that is exactly the type of conduct that the bill
    supposedly prohibits.
        The bill's proponents try to sidestep this obvious flaw by
    arguing instead that the bill is needed because abortions are
    disproportionately common in communities of color. But to the
    extent abortions are performed disproportionately in minority
    communities, the disparity points to broader socio-economic
    inequalities that banning abortion will not solve.
        The African-American and Hispanic communities are
    underserved when it comes to prenatal, maternal, and child
    healthcare services. This lack of access to reproductive
    healthcare results in African-American women being three to
    four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes
    than White women. And barriers to effective contraceptives and
    effective sex education, among other things, leads to the
    unintended pregnancy rate for African-American women being 67
    percent versus 40 percent for White women. Minority communities
    lack access to adequate health care.
        Yet rather than addressing these disparities, the bill only
    reinforces them through its criminal penalties, which will
    create a chilling effect on doctors serving these communities.
        So finally I reject in the strongest possible terms the
    slander that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers
    are inherently racist. Planned Parenthood is a leading provider
    of high quality health care for women serving 2.7 million
    Americans a year. It provides many critical health services,
    such as annual wellness claims, cancer screenings,
    contraception, and the study of sexually transmitted diseases.
        My hero in all of this and many other issues, Dr. Martin
    Luther King, Jr., strongly supported the work of Margaret
    Sanger, Planned Parenthood's founder, and emphasized the
    importance of access to family planning resources for African-
    Americans.
        On accepting the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned
    Parenthood in 1966, Dr. King stated, and I quote, and as I
    conclude, ``There is a striking kinship between our movement
    and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the
    horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that
    all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was
    a direct actionist, a non-violent resister. African-Americans
    have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning.
    They have a special and urgent concern.''
        My friends, I concur with Dr. King and reject the sponsor's
    preposterous and offensive argument that legalized abortion and
    its providers are racist.
        And I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and I
    am concluded at this point.
        Mr. Franks. And I thank the gentleman. And without
    objection, the other Members' opening statements will be made
    part of the record.
        And before I introduce the witnesses, it looks like they
    have called votes on us and I cannot imagine that the
    leadership would dare call a vote without checking with us
    first, but that is what they have done. So we will be breaking
    momentarily, but before we break I would first like to ask for
    unanimous consent to submit three items for the record.
        The first is a statement prepared by Alveda King, who
    currently serves as pastoral associate and director of Civil
    Rights for the Unborn and for Priests for Life. She is also the
    daughter of Reverend A.D. King and the niece of Dr. Martin
    Luther King. She has also submitted to this Committee a blog
    post she posted on February 3, 2014, and I am grateful for her
    post and for her contribution.
        Last, I would like to submit for the record a statement
    prepared by Reggie Littlejohn on sex selection abortion
    occurring in the United States and abroad and without objection
    it would be entered into the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         __________

        Mr. Franks. And at this time, then, I will adjourn the
    Committee and we will come back and we will introduce all of
    you and proceed with testimony. I am sorry the vote is going be
    a little bit long, but we will get back as soon as we can.
    Thank you all, and we are in recess.
        [Recess]
        Mr. Franks. This meeting will come to order. Thank you all
    for waiting so patiently. And we will now introduce our
    witnesses.
        And our first witness is Catherine Davis. Ms. Davis is a
    founding member of the National Black Pro-Life Coalition, and
    founder and president of the Restoration Project. She often
    partners with the National Black Pro-Life Coalition, the
    Network of Politically Active Christians, and the Frederick
    Douglas Foundation, in an ongoing effort to educate Americans
    about the issues that are impacting the Black community.
        Our second witness is Anna Higgins. Ms. Higgins is an
    attorney and associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier
    Institute, a research and education institution dedicated to
    bringing together physicians, sociologists, statisticians, and
    policy researchers on a wide range of life issues. She has
    previously held the position of director of the Center for
    Human Dignity at the Family Research Council.
        Our third witness is Miriam Yeung. Ms. Yeung is the
    executive director of the National Asian Pacific American
    Women's Forum, a multi-issue progressive organization dedicated
    to social justice and human rights for Asian, and Pacific
    Islander women and girls in the U.S.
        The current priorities include winning rights for immigrant
    women, organizing nail salon workers for safer working
    conditions, conducting community based participatory research
    with young API women, and ending human trafficking.
        Our fourth and final witness is Reverend Derek McCoy.
    Reverend McCoy is the National Clergy Relations Director for
    the Center of Urban Renewal and Education, a non-profit think
    tank dedicated to addressing the issues of race and poverty
    through the principals of faith, freedom, and personal
    responsibility. He previously served as the president of the
    Maryland Family Alliance, and Maryland Family Council. I just
    want to welcome all of you. Thank you for being here.
        Now, each of the witnesses written statements will be
    entered into the record in its entirety. And I would ask that
    each of you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. To
    help you stay within that time there is a timing light in front
    of you. The light will switch from green to yellow, indicating
    that you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the
    light turns red it indicates that the witness' 5 minutes have
    expired.
        And before I recognize the witness, it is the tradition of
    the Subcommittee that they be sworn. So, if you please stand to
    be sworn.
        Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about
    to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
    truth, so help you god? Please be seated.
        Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the
    affirmative. And I would now recognize our first witness, Ms.
    Davis. And, Ms. Davis, if you pull that microphone to you and
    turn it on before beginning.
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Franks. Thank you for being here.

     TESTIMONY OF CATHERINE DAVIS, FOUNDING CORE MEMBER, NATIONAL
       BLACK PRO-LIFE COALITION, AND PRESIDENT, THE RESTORATION
                                PROJECT

        Ms. Davis. Thank you so much for allowing me to come and
    address this issue, which is at the core of the reason for why
    the National Black Pro-Life Coalition exists. There are some in
    America today who want us to ignore the motives of
    organizations that have been targeting women of color, but we
    cannot. Race became an issue in the reproductive healthcare
    debate with the introduction of Margaret Sanger and Clarence
    Gamble's Negro Project in 1939 that sought to bring about a
    major birthrate reduction among American Negroes.
        The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has never
    renounced this project, and we believe it is in operation
    today. In fact, Alan Guttmacher, the president of Planned
    Parenthood from 1962 to 1974 was a eugenicist. And, for a time,
    his presidency at Planned Parenthood overlapped his vice-
    presidency at the American Eugenics Society that championed
    racial betterment, eugenic health, and genetic education.
        It was with this ideology that he guided the organization
    into the era of abortion on demand. In the Roe v. Wade
    decision, Mr. Justice Blackman said, ``In addition, population
    growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to
    complicate and not to simplify the problem.'' Without
    explanation for why the court felt it important to mention this
    in the opinion, it was this statement that introduced race and
    population control into abortion practices.
        Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 2009 New York
    Times magazine interview seemed to confirm race was an issue,
    when she said, ``She had thought that at the time Roe v. Wade
    was decided there was concern about population growth and
    particularly growth in populations we do not want too many
    of.''
        No one doubted that the population they did not want too
    many of were the Negroes in Planned Parenthood's Negro Project.
    The march toward controlling the Black birth rate through
    abortion has accelerated, and larger and larger surgical
    abortion facilities are being erected in densely populated
    Black and Latino neighborhoods. A 2012 study completed by
    Protecting Black Life of Cincinnati, Ohio revealed that more
    than 79 percent of Planned Parenthood's surgical centers are
    located within a two-mile walking radius of a Black or Latino
    neighborhood.
        In their 2008/2009 tax filing, Planned Parenthood
    acknowledged their mission is to achieve a United States
    population of stable size. One example of the tools that they
    use to achieve that goal is found in the certificate of public
    need submitted to the Virginia Department of Health in 2012.
    Planned Parenthood of Virginia Beach cited Black infant and
    maternal mortality rates to justify the construction of a third
    surgical room where they could terminate up to 1,800 babies
    each year.
        In hearings for a PRENDA-like bill in Georgia in 2010, a
    young White female testified that she had gotten pregnant at
    age 14 by a Black male. Her mother forced her to abort the
    child, stating that she could not bring that little Black so-
    and-so into her home. Despite telling every worker in the
    Augusta, Georgia Planned Parenthood, including the doctor, that
    she wanted her child they aborted her baby.
        Margo Davidson, a Black Pennsylvania Democrat, was endorsed
    by Planned Parenthood in her 2010 race for the State House. Ms.
    Davidson's cousin, Semika Shaw, was 5 months pregnant, and she
    died after a botched abortion in Gosnell's center. When
    Davidson chose to vote to close the regulatory loophole,
    Planned Parenthood withdrew their support and fielded a
    candidate to run against her.
        In 2012, an abortion doctor in Charlotte, North Carolina
    publically stated his motive for doing abortions was ``to keep
    ugly Black babies from being born, and a burden to taxpayers.''
        We are asking that the Congress take action to provide
    relief through enacting PRENDA. Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Catherine Davis, Founding Core Member,
       National Black Profile Coalition, and President, The Restoration
                                    Project

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             __________

        Mr. Franks. Thank you Ms. Davis. I now recognize our second
    witness, Ms. Higgins. And, Ms. Higgins, if you will pull that
    microphone toward you and make sure that it is on.

     TESTIMONY OF ANNA HIGGINS, J.D., ASSOCIATE SCHOLAR, CHARLOTTE
                            LOZIER INSTITUTE

        Ms. Higgins. All right. Here we go. Mr. Chairman Franks,
    Ranking Member Cohen, and distinguished Members of the
    Subcommittee, I am grateful to have asked by the Subcommittee
    to testify today in support of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination
    Act of 2016, or H.R. 4924.
        Passing this bill is a necessary and proactive step in the
    fight to end gender inequality domestically and abroad. Many
    people in the United States assume that sex discrimination has
    been all but eliminated here. Yet, a violent form of sex
    discrimination in the form of sex selective abortion, practiced
    on girls in particular, is still permitted within our boarders.
        Sex selective abortion is choosing to abort a preborn child
    based solely on that child's sex. Any discrimination against a
    unique human individual based on sex alone constitutes sex
    discrimination, and it cannot stand. Congress has the
    opportunity here, through the passage of the Prenatal
    Nondiscrimination Act to prohibit the discriminatory practice
    of sex selective abortion, thereby confirming the fact that
    women have the same inherent civil and human rights as men.
        I intend to testify to the existence of sex discrimination
    through sex selective abortion, the seriousness of it, and the
    justifications in enacting this bill. My comments are condensed
    from my extensive research paper just published by Charlotte
    Lozier Institute this week. The findings on sex selective
    abortion in this bill are quite extensive, and I think they
    highlight the prevalence of the problem here in the United
    States, and the problem globally of sex discrimination against
    girls via abortion.
        Ban on sex selective abortion to protect girls, in
    particular from the practice of gendercide. We know that
    studies show that at conception and at birth the ratio of males
    to females, naturally, biologically, is about equal.
        Additionally, there is little to no variation in sex ratios
    in relation to maternal race or age. So, any kind of skewed sex
    ratio at birth cannot be explained away by natural variations.
    There are well documented practices of infanticide and sex
    selective abortion of female children, and that has resulted in
    upwards of 160 million missing girls across the globe.
        So, what we are saying here is it is affecting the human
    society in general. Sex selection in favor of males is known to
    be a problem in certain cultures based on the idea of son
    preference, but the practice of son preference is not limited
    to certain cultures or countries. In fact, European countries
    have numbers similar to that skewed numbers of China and India,
    particularly the Caucasus.
        Opponents of these bans will claim that this precaution is
    not needed, because the ratio is balanced in the United States
    overall. That balanced ratio belies the fact that Western
    nations such as the U.K. and the U.S. have seen a spike in sex
    ratio imbalance within certain subpopulations inside our own
    borders. Studies have shown that. And another two studies out
    of Canada came out this week confirming those very numbers in
    extreme sex imbalance ratios.
        Additionally, we have a lot of commercial advertisements. I
    saw three websites this week that advertise in the United
    States finding out the gender of your child as early as 10
    weeks gestation for the purpose of family balancing. There's no
    way to family balance past pregnancy without sex selective
    abortion.
        The abysmal state of abortion reporting data does not allow
    us, in the United States, to have exact numbers. But the
    question before us is not, ``What are the exact numbers?'' The
    question before us is whether any abortion done for reasons of
    sex selection is permissible in light of our tradition, and
    laws protecting persons from discrimination based on sex alone.
        The American public overwhelmingly supports bans on sex
    selective abortion, because they understand this violates
    American tradition of holding up the idea that women and men
    are equal under the law, and should be thusly protected. Sex
    discrimination through sex selective abortion is a violent form
    of sex discrimination, and needs to be eliminated, not just
    globally, but also here in the United States.
        We have seen Congress say that this is not permissible
    practice overseas. We have seen Secretary of State Clinton, the
    United Nations, all come out against sex selective abortion.
    But, if we do not address this here, we have no right to
    address it elsewhere. So, we must accept that this occurs
    globally. And Congress can take their first step in eliminating
    the reprehensive practice of discriminating against women by
    banning sex selective abortion here in the United States, and
    thereby retain its moral authority to say, ``This should not
    happen anywhere.'' Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Higgins follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           __________

        Mr. Franks. Thank you, Ms. Higgins. And we now recognize
    Ms. Yeung.

        TESTIMONY OF MIRIAM YEUNG, MPA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE
             NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM

        Ms. Yeung. Thank you for allowing me to testify before you
    today. I lead the National Asian Pacific American Women's
    Forum, the country's only multi-issue organization dedicated to
    building a movement for social justice and human rights for
    Asian American and Pacific Islander women and girls in the
    United States. On behalf of NAPAWF and the dozens of women's
    rights reproductive justice and civil rights groups that stand
    with me, I strongly urge the Members of this Congress to oppose
    the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2016.
        This bill represents a duplicitous attempt to address
    racial and gender discrimination, while actually intending to
    chip away at abortion rights. Not only does this legislation
    call into question a woman's motives for seeking abortion care,
    it is especially punishing in the precedent it would set,
    forcing doctors to scrutinize a woman because of her race or
    ethnicity. The decision to seek abortion care should be up to a
    woman with her doctor and her family, not politicians. The
    majority of Americans support this value, and believe that a
    woman knows what is best for her and her family.
        In a 2015 poll by Hart Research Associates, 65 percent
    Americans say that Congress should not be spending time
    debating and passing a sex selective abortion ban. I encourage
    Members of the Subcommittee to support racial equality in a
    real way, by addressing healthcare disparities in communities
    of color, and protecting the sanctity of the doctor/patient
    relationship by supporting open, honest communication with
    one's medical provider.
        This bill forces doctors to act as police interrogators in
    the exam room, ultimately making women more reluctant to share
    their personal experiences for fear of their private
    information being made public. When medically accurate, safe,
    and nonjudgmental patient counseling is taken away, women,
    especially those most vulnerable to domestic violence or
    trafficking, lose the chance to get the help she needs.
        This bill perpetuates the offensive stereotype that Black
    women are unable to make reproductive health decisions for
    their own families. It accuses Black women of being
    irresponsible and worse, intentionally deselecting babies who
    share their own race. Black women choose abortion care more
    often than other communities do because of a well-documented,
    disproportionate lack of access to contraception. This
    legislation does nothing to address the root causes of
    unintended pregnancies or historically rooted inequalities
    within these communities.
        In February of 2016, Black women leaders came together in
    solidarity to affirm Black women's autonomy, and reject
    legislation like PRENDA that relies on racist claims about
    Black mothers. In their own words, Monica Raye Simpson,
    director of the Trust Black Women Partnership said, ``Bans on
    abortion based on race rely on anti-Black and anti-immigrant
    stereotypes about women of color, and constitutes a direct
    assault on Black motherhood.
        We must remember that this legislation has its origins in
    the billboards put up here in Atlanta and around the country
    attacking Black mothers and stigmatizing our decisions about
    pregnancy, billboards we fought and successfully saw removed.''
    Alicia Garza, cofounder of Black Lives Matter said, ``We
    absolutely have to make sure that reproductive justice, and
    reproductive freedom is part of the narrative of what it takes
    to make Black lives matter.''
        Women of color already face difficulties accessing health
    care and have poorer health outcomes. Black women are more
    likely to die from preventable pregnancy related causes than
    White women, and their unintended pregnancy rate is higher than
    any other ethnic or racial group. Vietnamese women are five
    times more likely to die from cervical cancer than White women.
    High levels of poverty already prevent Asian American women and
    other women of color from accessing health care every day.
    Unfortunately, PRENDA would make healthcare outcomes for women
    of color even worse.
        This legislation also perpetuates the offensive stereotype
    that Asian American families do not value the lives of their
    girl children, while also not addressing the issue of sex
    selection by ignoring substantive policy to alleviate the root
    causes of son preference or gender inequity. While sex
    selection is an issue abroad, the U.S. is not China or India.
    In the U.S. researchers have found that there is not a
    widespread issue and, in fact, Asian Americans are actually
    having more girls on average than White Americans are.
        Gender inequity cannot be solved by banning abortion. An
    interagency U.N. statement addressing sex selection and gender
    discrimination clearly explains that countries, ``Have an
    obligation to ensure that these injustices,'' meaning son
    preference, ``are addressed without exposing women to the risk
    of death or serious injury by denying them access to needed
    services, such as safe abortion.'' Aruna Papp, the Canadian
    advocate, cited in the findings, concurs with this opinion, and
    has submitted written testimony opposed to PRENDA for the harm
    it will do to women.
        Asian American and Pacific Islander women know that gender
    inequities do exist and are working in culturally competent
    ways to provide long-term, sustainable solutions. NAPAWF and
    others are working with members of our own community to empower
    women and girls, thereby challenging norms and transforming
    values. We cannot help women by taking away women's rights. We
    cannot eliminate racism by relying on racist assumptions.
        I welcome all Members of Congress to pass legislation that
    truly results in racial justice and gender equality. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Yeung follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Miriam Yeung, MPA,
             National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             __________

        Mr. Franks. Thank you Ms. Yeung. And I would now--Reverend
    McCoy please.
        Rev. McCoy. Thank you.
        Mr. Franks. Let's pull that microphone up close to you,
    sir, and make sure it is on.
        Rev. McCoy. It is on. Thank you.
        Mr. Franks. Okay, sir. Thank you.

     TESTIMONY OF DEREK McCOY, REVEREND. NATIONAL CLERGY RELATIONS
            DIRECTOR, CENTER OF URBAN RENEWAL AND EDUCATION

        Rev. McCoy. Chairman Franks, Ranking Member Cohen, and
    distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
    allowing me to testify today. I serve as the national director
    of CURE. But, really, we represent over 1,000 voices across the
    country. Our work is to fight poverty and be voices of the
    underserved by helping them apply principals of faith, freedom,
    and personal responsibility. I also serve on two boards that
    support pregnancy centers as well.
        I come today to offer my strong support and endorsement for
    H.R. 4924, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act. Like many
    liberals in the Black community, I too believe that Black lives
    do matter. But, I think that the passage of H.R. 4924 would
    codify this notion into law by not forcing and allowing for
    race selective abortions. As tragic as all the violent deaths
    are within the Black community and cities like Chicago,
    Baltimore, D.C., they pale in comparison to the murders that
    are taking place within the wombs of Black women every day
    throughout our Nation.
        The rise of feticide in the world is astronomical. On the
    global front, we are virtually watching and observing entire
    countries alter birth rates and normal balance of population
    and gender due to sex selective abortions. My support for this
    legislation is not only based on my deep personal thankfulness
    for being born to a Black woman, or my conviction as an African
    American male that deplores discrimination, or as a citizen of
    the country that does not want to see sex discrimination, but a
    citizen who deeply desires the same protections be afforded to
    them by the Constitution be given to all including the preborn.
        My support also comes as a father, and a man who sees the
    destruction of lives and have heard from and counseled the
    women who had to deal with the emotional and physical
    consequences of having lived with the gut-wrenching termination
    of a pregnancy. Creating a life is an ultimate gift from god.
    What we do with that life is our gift back to god.
        The passage of H.R. 4924 would help ensure that we do not
    run short of the gifts that we give back to god. As stated
    years ago by the, then pro-life, Reverend Jesse Jackson in
    January 1977, ``Politicians argue for abortion largely because
    they do not want to spend the necessary money to feed, clothe,
    or educate more people. Here arguments for inconvenience and
    economic savings take precedence over for human value and human
    life.
        Psychiatrists, social workers, and doctors often argue for
    abortion on the basis that the child will grow up mentally and
    emotionally scarred. But who of us is complete?'' he asked.
    ``If incompleteness were the criterion for taking on life,
    would we all be dead? If we can justify abortion on the basis
    of emotional incompleteness, then your logic could also lead
    you to killing others for other forms of incompleteness as
    well, such as blindness, crippledness, or old age.'' And I
    would add to that, race and/or gender.
        Abortion based on sex selection, race selection, or gender
    selection is antithetical to our civilized society. If it is
    illegal to murder based on sex, race, or gender, would it not
    be equally illegal to murder a child in the womb based on these
    same characteristics? So, this issue of nondiscrimination
    brings us back to even what my colleague Ms. Davis said about
    eugenics.
        Ultimately, a Nation will be judged on how they protect the
    most vulnerable in their society. My job here today is simple,
    to be a voice to the thousands of Americans that want to see
    the Constitution applied to the least of these in our society.
    When one thinks about aborting a child based on race, sex, or
    gender, many of us reel with disgust because we have seen the
    effects of such actions in countries like China and other parts
    of the world where they have a shortage of females; that has
    become a national security issue. China does not even have
    enough females for males to marry. So, Chinese males are
    leaving the country, causing a labor shortage, but also causing
    a national identity problem.
        When I think about selective abortions, I cannot help but
    be reminded about eugenics, and the Black community has been
    one of the most hard hit for the plight of abortions in our
    communities. About 50 years ago a sociologist, who was also the
    Secretary of Labor, named Daniel Patrick Moynihan, stated that
    these trends in the Black community began to change. The Black
    family at that time had intact families with 78 percent of
    households having a mom and a dad.
        Abortion in our community was not common, and was
    unthinkable. However, the astute eye of Moynihan saw the
    scrubbing of our society by god by eliminating prayer in
    schools in 1963, had started to take effects on the collapse of
    the family. Marriages began breaking down. And by 1965 we had
    an all-out war on poverty and began the welfare state.
        In the 1960's we allowed unchecked sexual freedom to get
    out of control, and women's rights group like NOW began
    influencing NAACP to push for abortions in Black communities
    under the guise of reducing poverty and the population. Blacks
    were told, if we were controlled births, we would also escape
    poverty. Black women were seduced into this lie and are now
    living with the results of 16 million killed since Roe v. Wade,
    which took place in 1973, a mere 5 years after King's death.
        It is ironic that the Fifth Amendment in 1870 to the U.S.
    Constitution abolished discrimination based on race. A more
    civilized 1973 U.S. Supreme Court discriminated against the
    life of the unborn. In closing, I would like to invite each
    Member to support this legislation. Think long and hard about
    the America we want to pass along to the next generation a
    social experiment of genetic engineering at the hands of those
    who choose who wins and who loses in life. Come to my city.
    Meet some of the women who have indeed had counseling after
    having an abortion. I invite you. Thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Rev. McCoy follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          __________

       Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Reverend McCoy. We will now
    proceed under the 5 minute rule with questions. And I will
    begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Davis, I will begin with you, if it is all right. Now,
    there are critics who say that PRENDA has a much larger agenda.
    In fact, I think in Ms. Yeung's testimony she states that
    ``this bill represents a duplicitous attempt to address racial
    and gender discrimination.''
        The challenge I have with that is that somehow protecting
    an unborn child from being aborted on the basis of race, that
    is racism. But taking the life of an unborn child on the basis
    of race is not racism. And protecting a little girl from being
    aborted because she is a little girl rather than a little boy,
    that is gender discrimination; but taking the life of a little
    girl because she is a little girl instead of a little boy, that
    is not gender discrimination.
        And that is hard for me to understand. Is your testimony
    intended to be a duplicitous attempt to address racial and
    gender discrimination? Is that your testimony?
        Ms. Davis. There is no duplicity here. And, in all honesty,
    Congressman, I am, along with the National Black Pro-Life
    Coalition, working to end the targeting of the Black community.
    It is an all-out war. It truly is, because we are being
    targeted. And Planned Parenthood is behind that targeting. Here
    in Congress, in 2012, the Black Congressional Caucus, the women
    of the Black Congressional Caucus, and the Pro-Life Caucus
    hosted an event that was funded by the Ford Foundation, on
    whose board Cecile Richards, the president of Planned
    Parenthood, sits. And, in that forum, they were training
    people, the attendees, on how to get around the message that
    the billboards that went up in 2010 in Georgia, which I was a
    part of that initiative: how to get around that message.
        And they gave them five particular points that included
    changing the conversation and challenging the pro-life
    community on why they are trying to make the disparities in
    health care worse. They told them to change the conversation
    and talk about access to health care, that Black women lack
    access to health care.
        Well, number one, abortion is not health care. And abortion
    all across this country is maiming and wounding women, and
    actually killing them like Tonya Reaves who was killed in a
    Planned Parenthood at 18 South Michigan Avenue in Chicago, when
    they botched the abortion and left her laying there for more
    than 5 hours bleeding before they sought emergency help too
    little too late.
        So, the racial component that PRENDA would provide would
    have allowed the family of Tonya Reaves, the dad of the baby,
    and grandparents to pursue Planned Parenthood who was operating
    their Negro Project when they killed Tonya's 5-month-old baby
    and Tonya.
        Mr. Franks. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Higgins, I am about out
    of time here, but in light of the Supreme Court's decision and
    reasoning in Gonzales v. Carhart, they talked about protecting
    the health of the mother, and also the government interest in
    protecting the reputation in the medical community, preserving
    the integrity and ethics of the medical profession, and
    promoting societal respect for unborn life. What arguments do
    you believe could be made in favor of PRENDA, prohibition of
    both discriminatory abortions and coerced abortions based on
    that decision?
        Ms. Higgins. Based on Gonzales v. Carhart, you are correct,
    Mr. Chairman, in saying that this was a ban on a partial birth
    abortion. So, that is one practice of abortion. Okay. So, what
    we are looking at here is a ban on a single reason for an
    elective abortion that is a single discriminatory reason.
        So, what the courts did here in Gonzales is they upheld
    that prohibition, whether it was pre-viability or post-
    viability, it did not matter. And the health exception of the
    mother was not included, because they said, ``There is an
    alternative.'' There is an alternative to this partial birth
    abortion, so there is no reason the State cannot prohibit this
    one practice.
        So, this is analogous in that all you are doing is
    prohibiting one reason, or availability of obtaining an
    elective abortion that does not implicate the health of the
    mother. So, it does not present an undue burden standard under
    Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which is where we look to our
    abortion jurisprudence standard. And they also said that the
    State have an interest in regulating abortion if they are
    instituting a mechanism that shows a profound respect for life,
    which this bill does.
        Mr. Franks. Thank you, Ms. Higgins. I thank all of you. And
    I will now recognize Mr. Deutch for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin I would
    like to yield 45 seconds to the gentlelady from California, Ms.
    Chu.
        Ms. Chu. Thank you Congressman Deutch for yielding. I want
    to thank Miriam Yeung for testifying today, and her leadership
    on issues affecting the Asian American and Pacific Islander or
    AAPI community.
        As chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus, and as
    an Asian American woman, I am extremely disappointed and deeply
    disturbed to see that PRENDA is once again before this
    Subcommittee. And I will continue to voice my strong opposition
    to the racist and sexist nature of this bill. I request that my
    full written statement be entered into the record.
        Mr. Franks. Without objection.
        Ms. Chu. And I also request that three documents be entered
    into the record. The first is a letter from leading
    reproductive justice organizations in the U.S., which
    represents the very women of color this bill claims to protect,
    unequivocally condemning this legislation.
        The second is a letter from the AAPI reproductive justice
    community, and expresses deep concerns about the dangerous
    stereotypes that the bill perpetuates about the AAPI community,
    which could lead to the racial profiling of AAPI women.
        Finally, the third is a letter from Aruna Papp, whose
    testimony is included in the text of PRENDA, and who states
    that her research has been fundamentally misrepresented and
    misconstrued, and that PRENDA would only further harm women who
    are victims of domestic violence. Thank you. And I yield back.*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *Note: The material submitted by Ms. Chu is not printed in this
    hearing record but is on file with the Subcommittee and can also be
    accessed at:

          http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
          ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104783
        Mr. Franks. All right. Without objection.
        Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for holding
    this hearing. Discrimination based on sex and gender bias are
    huge and pervasive problems. As the father of two daughters, I
    want to work toward a world for them that treats them and their
    brother fairly on the merits of their arguments and their
    actions, rather than with prejudgments or bias. Our biases
    about the proper roles of women are so completely pervasive
    that it feels difficult to even know where to begin.
        And while we see examples of gender bias in real life
    problems, like pay inequality, glass ceilings, the actual
    problem is so much deeper. From the way we react to girls and
    boys differently, to the very language we use to describe
    similar behaviors, these biases are deeply ingrained in our
    culture.
        We even see evidence of this deep seeded bias in the type
    of futures we as parents imagine for our children. And women
    experience this bias every day. Will their appearance be valued
    more than their ideas? Will they be viewed as unprofessional
    for speaking up and for defending their ideas? Will they be
    targeted on social media with threats of violence? Will they be
    able to attend college without fear of sexual assault? And will
    they be heard when they say, ``No?''
        With a problem so pervasive, there is no easy fix. Bringing
    an end to sexism and gender bias requires us to address the
    root cause of inequality. This means investing in preventative
    healthcare programs, science based sex education, economic
    empowerment efforts, and supporting fair housing and employment
    practices. The most obvious symptom of gender bias is the
    continuing pay disparity between men and women in the
    workplace. Two days ago we finally had Equal Pay Day, April 12.
    April 12 represented how far into the year of 2016 women work
    to earn as much pay as men.
        Women are paid 79 cents for every dollar a man is paid, and
    the gap is even worse for women of color. At that rate, when we
    are currently moving toward closing the pay gap, women will
    still be waiting for a dollar to mean a dollar 44 years from
    now. My college age daughters will be approaching their
    retirement. This is the fundamental problem. The ripple effects
    that working families, whose wages have barely budged since the
    1990's, and while pay stays flat costs soar for housing, for
    childcare, for education, just to name a few.
        Unequal pay contributes to broader issues of economic
    inequality and the disappearing middle class. So, it is good.
    It really, really is good to see a bill start off with an
    affirmation of the basic truth that women are a vital part of
    American society and culture, and possess the same fundamental
    human rights and civil rights as men. And I hope that we as a
    Congress can work to live up to the promises underlying that
    basic truth, the promise of education, the promise of access to
    health care, the promise of justice for victims of sexual
    assault, the promise of equal employment opportunities, and the
    promise of finally closing the inexcusable pay gap.
        It is a shame that this Subcommittee's attempt to confront
    the serious issue of sex discrimination and gender bias is
    nothing more than this Committee telling women what they can
    and cannot do with their bodies again. The United States
    Constitution protects a woman's right to make the personal,
    private decision to have an abortion, and pretending that this
    bill is anything other than an attempt to undermine and weaken
    that constitutionally protected right is a farce. And, for that
    reason, I have no questions, and I yield back.
        Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman. We will take a second
    round here so that you folks have been so kind to stick around
    for a while. You know, I have heard a lot here about types of
    discrimination and gender inequity. And those are all issues
    that I am deeply concerned about. But it occurs to me that if a
    little girl is aborted before she is born, based on the fact
    that she is a little girl rather than a little boy that it then
    becomes impossible to reach any other area of discrimination
    that might have occurred in the life she might have had.
        Sometimes it is good to come back to earth here a little
    bit. We are talking around the issue. And, Ms. Higgins, I
    wonder if you would do us all the favor of saying, specifically
    in fairly simple terms that those of us who are not lawyers can
    understand, what does this bill actually do?
        Ms. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically, this
    bill--it does a couple things. First of all, what you said is,
    ``The reason we are addressing this sex selective abortion in
    this PRENDA bill, the importance of addressing that, is that it
    is taking a holistic view.'' This is the most lethal form of
    sex discrimination that is practiced globally, and in the
    United States. It has to be addressed.
        Not only am I saying this, but it is something that we have
    seen former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton say, that we as
    the U.S. must lead the way to promote women's rights and
    women's equality, in reference to infanticide and sex selective
    abortions.
        Nobuko Horibe, who is the director of the U.N. Population
    Fund on Asia and Pacific regional office said, ``We have to
    give priority to programs like PRENDA that foster norms''; she
    did not say, ``like PRENDA,'' but that is my statement there;
    ``that foster norms in an attitude of zero tolerance for
    discrimination such as prenatal sex selection.''
        Gender equality is at the very heart of each country's
    successful development. Zero tolerance of sex discrimination
    necessarily involves banning the practice of sex selective
    abortion. The government has a compelling interest in
    protecting anyone, whether it is male or female, from any
    instance of sex discrimination. That is a compelling interest.
        And we know that a compelling interest would require that
    the government have an exceedingly persuasive justification to
    survive Constitutional scrutiny. Whereas, in abortion
    jurisprudence, you do not even get to the fundamental rights
    language. But you do in sex selection, because it amounts to
    discrimination. And we see that in the Civil Rights Act.
        The Civil Rights Act was, basically, also applied to
    private individuals who discriminate. So, it is in fact a very
    important government interest. It is a compelling interest. And
    when we say that PRENDA is not necessary, why are we setting--
    we are saying it is not necessary here, because we do not have
    that many sex selective abortions. Well, it happens here.
        So, what PRENDA does is eliminate that practice. What we
    are saying is, ``There are no tolerable levels of lethal sex
    discrimination against girls.'' There is no tolerable level,
    whether it is one or 1 million. It is not acceptable. The 14th
    Amendment guarantees everyone equal protection under the law.
    That is a compelling government interest that we must protect.
    We must take a holistic view. And it includes banning sex
    selective abortion. Otherwise, we cannot be a moral authority
    overseas and tell people they cannot do it, if we do.
        So, the second thing PRENDA does, I think, that is
    important is it allows women--and we know there are documented
    instances of women in communities around this country in the
    United States who are coerced into having sex selective
    abortions against their will. So, what PRENDA does, it allows
    that woman an out. It allows them a civil remedy against anyone
    who has coerced them to have an abortion against their will
    based on the reasons of sex selection. So, it empowers women to
    know that the government stands behind them in protecting them
    from this practice.
        So, I think those are the two main things PRENDA does, and
    I think that they are justified under the Constitution.
        Mr. Franks. Thank you, Ms. Higgins. And, Reverend McCoy, I
    will turn to you. You know, I heard again today some concerns
    about the gender pay gap, and I understand that concern. But,
    you know, in this case we are trying to--and essentially
    address a gender survival gap, you know, whether or not these
    children survive or not. And, unfortunately, across the world,
    one of the most lethal phrases that you can imagine anymore is,
    ``It is a girl.''
        And I wonder, you know, there was a famous Democrat running
    for president, Mr. Humphrey, that said, you know, that,
    ``Society will be judged by how it treats those in the dawn of
    life, those in the shadows of life, and those in the twilight
    of life.'' And you say something along those lines in your
    testimony. ``A Nation will be judged on how they protect the
    most vulnerable of their society.''
        In your opinion, how well have we done that?
        Rev. McCoy. Thank you, Chairman Franks. You know, in my
    opinion, we are living, you know, in a moral crisis. We are
    living in a place where--you know, I am 100 percent at the
    place where many of the other Members already talked about.
    ``Hey. We want to make sure that we talk about equal pay. We
    want to make sure that we are taking care of many of the people
    and having these concerns that we are closing the pay equity
    gap, and making sure that we are taking care of women from
    their healthcare needs,'' and an assortment of issues.
        But, to answer your question directly, we are at a place
    where I do not think we have done well in allowing the most
    unprotected to have protections, and that is that child that is
    preborn. That is that child that is in the mother's womb. That
    should not be the most dangerous place for a child.
        Now, interesting enough, many people say, and they talk
    regularly. And I hear this all the time, especially being a
    male, about, ``Well, I am taking away a woman's right.'' And I
    hear that. But I will say this. I so appreciate the right that
    I had to be born. And I do not think any person here would ever
    say that they are mistaking, or they are sorrowful about being
    able to be born, being able to have Constitutional protections
    given to them.
        And I think that is where we are today in saying we need to
    make sure that we are taking care of those that are most
    vulnerable in society, in that they should have those
    protections, and that they should be taken care of; and that is
    the preborn. So, thank you for this legislation.
        Mr. Franks. Thank you Reverend McCoy, and Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will yield to Ms. Chu
    for some questions.
        Ms. Chu. Thank you so much, Congressman Deutch, for
    yielding. I am just astounded that this bill would force a
    doctor to make a decision about whether a woman is using sex
    selection or race selection. And, if he makes the wrong choice,
    or she, that doctor would end up potentially serving up to 5
    years in prison. Not only that, that they would have to show
    their suspicion that such a thing could happen. Even if they
    suspect such a thing, they have to report that to the
    authorities.
        So, Ms. Yeung, what kind of effect do you think this
    legislation will have on a woman's relationship with her
    doctor, particularly if she is a woman of color, and how do you
    think this will affect the healthcare outcomes for women?
        Ms. Yeung. Thank you for that question. This has a chilling
    effect on relationships between doctors and patients. I want to
    lift up the testimony submitted by members of the healthcare
    providers who wrote, ``PRENDA is written so broadly that a
    patient's simple comments, 'we hope it is a girl,' could put a
    health professional at risk of incarceration should they not
    report the conversation to law enforcement.''
        I believe, and I have members who have testified, that this
    leads to racial profiling in the office, that they feel judged
    when they walk into the doctor's office. And that is not the
    kind of care that we need. Ultimately, you cannot talk about
    abortion rights without talking about women. And I want to lift
    up that there are women in this room who have chosen to have
    abortions. Women choose to have abortions. And we have to trust
    women in each of their own decisions. Criminalizing doctors
    punishes women. There is no doubt about it.
        Ms. Chu. Now, do you think that there could be some son
    preference in some segments of the Asian American community?
    And is there a more effective way to address these issues
    wherever they remain? And I know that in South Korea there was
    some different kinds of approaches to this that show that the
    answer might possibly not be PRENDA.
        Ms. Yeung. That is right. In the international context, all
    the experts have documented that lifting the status, the
    economic and social status of women and girls addresses the
    root causes of gender inequity, which cause son preference.
        To your first point, I do want to enter record that, you
    know, after the first time we had this conversation in 2011,
    there was research in the Asian American community where we
    polled over 6,000 Asian Americans speaking in 10 different
    Asian languages, that is disaggregatable by top API
    ethnicities.
        And so, to your answer, who prefers sons? About 4 percent
    of Asian Americans overall. Who prefers girls? About 4 percent
    of Asian Americans overall. And who has no preference at all?
    91 percent. And plus or minus 7 is the kind of, you know, range
    in this research.
        The reality is it is a racist stereotype against Asian
    Americans that we have a preference for girls or boys.
        Ms. Chu. And do you think passing legislation that erodes a
    woman's Constitutional right to choose is the most effective
    means of ensuring that women are able to freely and
    independently make the important and deeply personal decision
    about when to start a family?
        Ms. Yeung. No. I mean, again, we have to trust women. Women
    are an important part of this equation that has gotten lost in
    this conversation. You cannot help women by taking her rights
    away, just fundamentally is nonsensical. Instead, I think this
    Committee has so many opportunities to do a lot of work to lift
    up women's rights. Today is the fight for 15. We know that one
    in three Asian American women make less than $15 an hour. That
    would be a significant improvement in a woman's life.
        Ms. Chu. And given the disparities in access to quality
    health care that exists in communities of color and low income
    communities, what steps can Congress do to improve women's
    access to health care? How can Congress support women,
    particularly in low income communities who make decisions
    regarding their health and family planning under economic
    stress?
        Ms. Yeung. Health care access is an enormously important
    issue, and close to my heart. I think culturally competent
    accessible care, including comprehensive reproductive health
    care is a necessity for our communities, and one that women of
    color have always led the fight for. I want to quote a
    statement by the National Political Congress of Black Women in
    1989.
        They said, ``We understand why African American women
    risked their lives then, and why they seek safe legal abortions
    now. It has been a matter of survival. Hunger and homelessness,
    inadequate housing and income to properly provide for
    themselves and their children. Family instability, rape,
    incest, abuse, too young, too old, too sick, too tired,
    emotional, physical, mental, economic, social; the reasons for
    not carrying a pregnancy to term are endless and varied,
    personal, urgent, and private. And for all these pressing
    reasons, African American women, once again, will be among the
    first force to risk their lives if abortion is made illegal.''
        Ms. Chu. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Franks. Mr. Jordan.
        Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, I would yield my time to the
    Chair.
        Mr. Franks. Thank you Mr. Jordan. You know, I think it
    probably is important to remind ourselves what the bill here
    before us really does. It says that, ``In America you cannot
    discriminate against an innocent unborn child by subjecting
    them to an abortion based on their race or sex.'' We protect
    people in employment decisions. We protect people in housing
    decisions. All kinds of things based on race or sex. But when
    we try to protect little babies from being killed on the basis
    of race or sex, rather than that being the center of the
    debate, we get all these other kinds of discussions.
        And I would just suggest to you that, if taking the life of
    a little baby because it is a little girl instead of a little
    boy--if that is not wrong, then I do not know what is wrong. I
    mean, I would be open to hearing suggestions. If deliberately
    targeting a minority community and seeing that community
    devastated as a result--if that is not wrong, then I do not
    what is wrong.
        Sooner or later, this country will have a time of
    reflection because future generations will see this change,
    just as we did in some of the past tragedies. And whatever time
    we spent ourselves will either be judged in the eyes of history
    or the eyes of eternity. And I want to thank all of you for
    coming here. And I would like to ask Ms. Davis if she has a
    final thought.
        Ms. Davis. I do, sir. I am deeply saddened sitting in this
    proceeding today. There is a quote that is attributed to Maya
    Angelou, and it says, ``When someone tells you who they are,
    believe them.'' Planned Parenthood has made very plain that
    they are operating a Negro Project in this country that is
    targeting Black women to lure them into their abortion centers
    in order to control the Black birth rate. This bill is not an
    attack on the woman. It is an opportunity to hold organizations
    like Planned Parenthood accountable for targeting children
    based on the color of their skin, and hold all of the
    abortionists accountable for targeting children based on their
    gender.
        To hear the information being twisted as if this bill is
    somehow attacking a woman and denying her the right to self-
    determine her reproductive life is just a travesty. And I pray
    that this Committee and the Congress would take the--why does
    abortion get an exception that no other business, no other
    industry gets? If any other industry showed the kind of data
    that we can find very clearly documented on what Planned
    Parenthood is doing, Black people, White people, would be up in
    arms to shut them down.
        Abortion should not be given a pass to target a woman based
    on the color of their skin as Planned Parenthood has told us
    they are doing. They told us that in the testimony on them
    selling body parts that they are reaching women of color. And
    it is a travesty that anyone elected to office would allow that
    kind of open discrimination against a group of people in this
    country to happen.
        And I pray that before we end up where we were when John
    Lewis got clocked on the head on the Pettus Bridge, and those
    four babies were killed in Birmingham, and Emmitt Till was
    tortured to death because of the color of his skin, that we
    would stop this travesty and stop Planned Parenthood from being
    able to target women of color. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Franks. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
        Ms. Yeung. May I comment on that?
        Mr. Franks. I am sorry, Ms. Yeung. I did not call on you.
    We are about out of time here. This is my time.
        Ms. Yeung. There are 25 minutes. I would like to make a
    comment, if you would, Chairman.
        Mr. Franks. Ma'am, this is my time. I guess, the real
    question here is does the abortion really kill a little child?
        Ms. Yeung. What is the role of women in this conversation?
        Mr. Franks. If it does not, then I am through talking about
    it. But if it does, then those of us in this room, whether we
    know it or not, are standing in the midst of the greatest human
    genocide in the history of humanity. And history will not only
    reflect that, the posterity----
        Ms. Yeung. Black women are not the genocidal actors. You
    are accusing Black women of murdering their own people.
        Mr. Franks. Somehow the notion of protecting little girls
    because they are not as--somehow, that you think that, somehow,
    that it is okay to take the life of a little girl because she
    is a little girl instead of a little boy. If that is your
    position, I think it speaks for itself.
        And, with that, it concludes today's hearing. Thanks to all
    of our witnesses, and Ms. Yeung, thanks to you for attending.
        Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit additional written questions for their witnesses, or
    additional materials for the record. And I thank the witnesses,
    and I thank the Members, and I thank the audience. And, with
    that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

     Addendum to the Prepared Statement of Derek McCoy, Reverend, National
        Clergy Relations Director, Center of Urban Renewal and Education

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Question for the Record submitted to Miriam Yeung, MPA, Executive
          Director, The National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *Note: The Subcommittee did not receive a response from this
    witness in time for its inclusion in this hearing record.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Prepared Statement of Steven M. Mosher, President,
                         Population Research Institute
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Prepared Statement of the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
                                    (NAPAWF)
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    [all]