[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, [email protected].
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]