[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 133 (Wednesday, December 6, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H8762-H8771]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNBORN CHILD PAIN AWARENESS ACT OF 2006
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 6099) to ensure that women seeking an abortion are
fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 6099
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Unborn Child Pain Awareness
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) At least by 20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn
child has the physical structures necessary to experience
pain.
(2) There is substantial evidence that by 20 weeks after
fertilization, unborn children draw away from certain stimuli
in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be
interpreted as a response to pain.
(3) Anesthesia is routinely administered to unborn children
who have developed 20 weeks or more after fertilization who
undergo prenatal surgery.
(4) There is substantial evidence that the abortion methods
most commonly used 20 weeks or more after fertilization cause
substantial pain to an unborn child, whether by
dismemberment, poisoning, penetrating or crushing the skull,
or other methods. Examples of abortion methods used 20 weeks
or more after fertilization include, but are not limited to
the following:
[[Page H8763]]
(A) The dilation and evacuation (D and E) method of
abortion is commonly performed in the second trimester of
pregnancy. In a dilation and evacuation abortion, the unborn
child's body parts are grasped with a long-toothed clamp. The
fetal body parts are then torn from the body and pulled out
of the vaginal canal. The remaining body parts are grasped
and pulled out until only the head remains. The head is then
grasped and crushed in order to remove it from the vaginal
canal.
(B) Partial-birth abortion is an abortion in which the
abortion practitioner delivers an unborn child's body until
only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of
the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the
child's brains out before completing the delivery of the dead
infant, and as further defined in 18 U.S.C. 1531.
(5) Expert testimony confirms that by 20 weeks after
fertilization an unborn child may experience substantial pain
even if the woman herself has received local analgesic or
general anesthesia.
(6) Medical science is capable of reducing such pain
through the administration of anesthesia or other pain-
reducing drugs directly to the unborn child.
(7) There is a valid Federal Government interest in
preventing or reducing the infliction of pain on sentient
creatures. Examples of this are laws governing the use of
laboratory animals and requiring pain-free methods of
slaughtering livestock, which include, but are not limited to
the following:
(A) Section 2 of the Act commonly known as the Humane
Slaughter Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-765; 7 U.S.C. 1902)
states, ``No method of slaughter or handling in connection
with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public
policy of the United States unless it is humane. Either of
the following two methods of slaughtering and handling are
hereby found to be humane--
``(i) in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep,
swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered
insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an
electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and
effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or
cut; or
``(ii) by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual
requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith
that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal
suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused
by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the
carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in
connection with such slaughtering.''.
(B) Section 13(a)(3) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.
2143(a)(3)) sets the standards and certification process for
the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of
animals. This includes having standards with respect to
animals in research facilities that include requirements--
(i) for animal care, treatment, and practices in
experimental procedures to ensure that animal pain and
distress are minimized, including adequate veterinary care
with the appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic,
tranquilizing drugs, or euthanasia;
(ii) that the principal investigator considers alternatives
to any procedure likely to produce pain to or distress in an
experimental animal; and
(iii) in any practice which could cause pain to animals--
(I) that a doctor of veterinary medicine is consulted in
the planning of such procedures;
(II) for the use of tranquilizers, analgesics, and
anesthetics;
(III) for pre-surgical and post-surgical care by laboratory
workers, in accordance with established veterinary medical
and nursing procedures;
(IV) against the use of paralytics without anesthesia; and
(V) that the withholding of tranquilizers, anesthesia,
analgesia, or euthanasia when scientifically necessary shall
continue for only the necessary period of time.
(C) Section 495 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
289d) directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
acting through the Director of the National Institutes of
Health, to establish guidelines for research facilities as to
the proper care and treatment of animals, including the
appropriate use of tranquilizers, analgesics, and other
drugs, except that such guidelines may not prescribe methods
of research. Entities that conduct biomedical and behavioral
research with National Institutes of Health funds must
establish animal care committees which must conduct reviews
at least semiannually and report to the Director of such
Institutes at least annually. If the Director determines that
an entity has not been following the guidelines, the Director
must give the entity an opportunity to take corrective
action, and, if the entity does not, the Director must
suspend or revoke the grant or contract involved.
(8) There is a valid Federal Government interest in
preventing harm to developing human life at all stages.
Examples of this include regulations protecting fetal human
subjects from risks of ``harm or discomfort'' in federally
funded biomedical research, 45 C.F.R. 102(i) and 45 C.F.R.
46.201 et seq.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE XXIX--UNBORN CHILD PAIN AWARENESS
``SEC. 2901. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title:
``(1) Abortion.--The term `abortion' means the intentional
use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any
other substance or device or method to terminate the life of
an unborn child, or to terminate the pregnancy of a woman
known to be pregnant with an intention other than--
``(A) to produce a live birth and preserve the life and
health of the child after live birth; or
``(B) to remove an ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead
unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous
abortion, accidental trauma or a criminal assault on the
pregnant female or her unborn child.
``(2) Abortion provider.--The term `abortion provider'
means any person legally qualified to perform an abortion
under applicable Federal and State laws.
``(3) Pain-capable unborn child.--
``(A) In general.--The term `pain-capable unborn child'
means an unborn child who has reached a probable stage of
development of 20 weeks or more after fertilization.
``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A)
shall be construed as a determination or finding by Congress
that pain may not in fact be experienced by an unborn child
at stages of development prior to 20 weeks or more after
fertilization.
``(4) Probable age of development.--The term `probable age
of development' means the duration of development after
fertilization of the unborn child at the time an abortion is
performed, as determined in the good faith judgment of the
abortion provider using generally accepted medical criteria
and information obtained by interviewing the pregnant woman.
``(5) Unborn child.--The term `unborn child' means a member
of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development.
``(6) Woman.--The term `woman' means a female human being
whether or not she has reached the age of majority.
``(7) Unemancipated minor.--The term `unemancipated minor'
means an individual who is not older than 18 years and who is
not emancipated under State law.
``SEC. 2902. REQUIREMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT.
``(a) Requirement of Compliance by Providers.--Any abortion
provider in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, who
knowingly performs any abortion of a pain-capable unborn
child, shall comply with the requirements of this title.
``(b) Provision of Consent.--
``(1) In general.--Before any part of an abortion involving
a pain-capable unborn child begins, the abortion provider or
his or her agent shall provide the pregnant woman involved,
by telephone or in person, with the information described in
paragraph (2). It may not be provided by a tape recording,
but must be provided in a fashion that permits the woman to
ask questions of and receive answers from the abortion
provider or his agent. (In the case of the Unborn Child Pain
Awareness Brochure, it may be provided pursuant to subsection
(c)(2) or (c)(3)).
``(2) Required information.--
``(A) In general.--An abortion provider or the provider's
agent to whom paragraph (1) applies shall provide the
following information to the pregnant woman (or in the case
of a deaf or non-English speaking woman, provide the
statement in a manner that she can easily understand):
``(i) Age of unborn baby.--The probable age of development
of the unborn baby based on the number of weeks since
fertilization.
``(ii) Unborn child pain awareness brochure.--An abortion
provider to whom paragraph (1) applies must provide the
pregnant woman with the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure
(referred to in this section as the `Brochure') to be
developed by the Department of Health and Human Services
under subsection (c) or with the information described in
subsection (c)(2) relating to accessing such Brochure.
``(iii) Use of pain-preventing drugs.--Drugs administered
to the mother may not prevent the unborn child from feeling
pain, but in some cases, anesthesia or other pain-reducing
drug or drugs can be administered directly to the unborn
child.
``(iv) Description of risks.--After providing the
information required under clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) the
abortion provider shall provide the woman involved with his
or her best medical judgment on the risks, if any, of
administering such anesthesia or analgesic, and the costs
associated therewith.
``(v) Administration of anesthesia.--If the abortion
provider is not qualified or willing to administer the
anesthesia or other pain-reducing drug to an unborn child in
response to a request from a pregnant women, the provider
shall--
``(I) arrange for a qualified specialist to administer such
anesthesia or drug; or
``(II) advise the pregnant woman--
``(aa) where she may obtain such anesthesia or other pain
reducing drugs for the unborn child in the course of an
abortion; or
``(bb) that the abortion provider is unable to perform the
abortion if the woman requires that she receive anesthesia or
other pain-reducing drug for her unborn child.
``(vi) Unborn child pain awareness decision form.--An
abortion provider to which paragraph (1) applies shall
provide the pregnant woman with the Unborn Child Pain
Awareness Decision Form (provided for under subsection (d))
and obtain the appropriate signature of the woman on such
form.
[[Page H8764]]
``(vii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section may
be construed to impede an abortion provider or the abortion
provider's agent from offering their own evaluation on the
capacity of the unborn child to experience pain, the
advisability of administering pain-reducing drugs to the
unborn child, or any other matter, as long as such provider
or agent provides the required information, obtains the
woman's signature on the decision form, and otherwise
complies with the affirmative requirements of the law.
``(B) Unborn child pain awareness brochure.--An abortion
provider to whom paragraph (1) applies shall provide the
pregnant woman with the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure
(referred to in this section as the `Brochure') to be
developed by the Department of Health and Human Services
under subsection (c) or with the information described in
subsection (c)(2) relating to accessing such Brochure.
``(C) Unborn child pain awareness decision form.--An
abortion provider to which paragraph (1) applies shall
provide the pregnant woman with the Unborn Child Pain
Awareness Decision Form (provided for under subsection (d))
and obtain the appropriate signature of the woman on such
form.
``(c) Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure.--
``(1) Development.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall develop an
Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure. Such Brochure shall:
``(A) Be written in English and Spanish.
``(B) Contain the following text: `Your doctor has
determined that, in his or her best medial judgment, your
unborn child is at least 20 weeks old. There is a significant
body of evidence that unborn children at 20 weeks after
fertilization have the physical structures necessary to
experience pain. There is substantial evidence that at least
by this point, unborn children draw away from surgical
instruments in a manner which in an infant or an adult would
be interpreted as a response to pain. There is substantial
evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will
cause the unborn child pain, even though you receive a pain-
reducing drug or drugs. Under the Federal Unborn Child Pain
Awareness Act of 2006, you have a right to know that there is
evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will
cause your unborn child pain. You may request that anesthesia
or other pain-reducing drug or drugs are administered
directly to the pain-capable unborn child if you so desire.
The purpose of administering such drug or drugs would be to
reduce or eliminate the capacity of the unborn child to
experience pain during the abortion procedure. In some cases,
there may be some additional risk to you associated with
administering such a drug.'
``(C) Contain greater detail on her option of having a
pain-reducing drug or drugs administered to the unborn child
to reduce the experience of pain by the unborn child during
the abortion.
``(D) Be written in an objective and nonjudgmental manner
and be printed in a typeface large enough to be clearly
legible.
``(E) Be made available by the Secretary at no cost to any
abortion provider.
``(2) Internet information.--The Brochure under this
section shall be available on the Internet website of the
Department of Health and Human Services at a minimum
resolution of 70 DPI (dots per inch). All pictures appearing
on the website shall be a minimum of 200x300 pixels. All
letters on the website shall be a minimum of 12 point font.
All such information and pictures shall be accessible with an
industry standard browser, requiring no additional plug-ins.
``(3) Presentation of brochure.--An abortion provider or
his or her agent must provide a pregnant woman with the
Brochure, developed under paragraph (1), before any part of
an abortion of a pain-capable child begins. The brochure may
be provided--
``(A) through an in-person visit by the pregnant woman;
``(B) through an e-mail attachment, from the abortion
provider or his or her agent; or
``(C) by certified mail, mailed to the woman at least 72
hours before any part of the abortion begins.
``(4) Waiver.--After the abortion provider or his or her
agent offers to provide a pregnant woman the brochure, a
pregnant woman may waive receipt of the brochure under this
subsection by signing the waiver form contained in the Unborn
Child Pain Awareness Decision Form.
``(d) Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of enactment of this title, the
Secretary shall develop an Unborn Child Pain Awareness
Decision Form. To be valid, such form shall--
``(1) with respect to the pregnant woman--
``(A) contain a statement that affirms that the woman has
received or been offered all of the information required in
subsection (b);
``(B) affirm that the woman has read the following
statement: `You are considering having an abortion of an
unborn child who will have developed, at the time of the
abortion, approximately __ weeks after fertilization. There
is a significant body of evidence that unborn children at 20
weeks after fertilization have the physical structures
necessary to experience pain. There is substantial evidence
that at least by this point, unborn children draw away from
surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an
adult would be interpreted as a response to pain. There is
substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an
abortion will cause the unborn child pain, even though you
receive a pain-reducing drug or drugs. Under the Federal
Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, you have a right to
know that there is evidence that the process of being killed
in an abortion will cause your unborn child pain. You may
request that anesthesia or other pain-reducing drug or drugs
are administered directly to the pain-capable unborn child if
you so desire. The purpose of administering such drug or
drugs would be to reduce or eliminate the capacity of the
unborn child to experience pain during the abortion
procedure. In some cases, there may be some additional risk
to you associated with administering such a drug.';
``(C) require the woman to explicitly either request or
refuse the administration of pain-reducing drugs to the
unborn child; and
``(D) be signed by a pregnant woman prior to the
performance of an abortion involving a pain-capable unborn
child; and
``(2) with respect to the abortion provider--
``(A) contain a statement that the provider has provided
the woman with all of the information required under
subsection (b);
``(B) if applicable, contain a certification by the
provider that an exception described in section 2903 applies
and the detailed reasons for such certification; and
``(C) be signed by the provider prior to the performance of
the abortion procedure.
``(e) Maintenance of Records.--The Secretary shall
promulgate regulations relating to the period of time during
which copies of forms under subsection (d) shall be
maintained by abortion providers.
``SEC. 2903. EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCIES.
``(a) In General.--The provisions of section 2902 shall not
apply to an abortion provider in the case of a medical
emergency.
``(b) Medical Emergency Defined.--
``(1) In general.--In subsection (a), the term `medical
emergency' means a condition which, in the reasonable medical
judgment of the abortion provider, so complicates the medical
condition of the pregnant woman so as to necessitate the
immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert her death, or
for which a delay would create a serious risk of substantial
and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. The
term `medical emergency' shall not include emotional,
psychological or mental disorders or conditions.
``(2) Reasonable medical judgment.--In paragraph (1), the
term `reasonable medical judgment' means a medical judgment
that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician,
knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities
with respect to the medical conditions involved.
``(c) Certification.--
``(1) In general.--Upon a determination by an abortion
provider under subsection (a) that a medical emergency exists
with respect to a pregnant woman, such provider shall certify
the specific medical conditions that constitute the
emergency.
``(2) False statements.--An abortion provider who willfully
falsifies a certification under paragraph (1) shall be
subject to all the penalties provided for under section 2904
for failure to comply with this title.
``SEC. 2904. PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY.
``(a) In General.--An abortion provider who willfully fails
to comply with the provisions of this title shall be subject
to civil penalties in accordance with this section in an
appropriate Federal court.
``(b) Commencement of Action.--The Attorney General may
commence a civil action under this section.
``(c) First Offense.--Upon a finding by a court that a
respondent in an action commenced under this section has
knowingly violated a provision of this title, the court shall
notify the appropriate State medical licensing authority and
shall assess a civil penalty against the respondent in an
amount not to exceed $100,000.
``(d) Second and Subsequent Offenses.--Upon a finding by a
court that the respondent in an action commenced under this
section has knowingly violated a provision of this title and
the respondent has been found to have knowingly violated a
provision of this title on a prior occasion, the court shall
notify the appropriate State medical licensing authority and
shall assess a civil penalty against the respondent in an
amount not to exceed $250,000.
``(e) Private Right of Action.--A pregnant woman upon whom
an abortion has been performed in violation of this title, or
the parent or legal guardian of such a woman if she is an
unemancipated minor, may commence a civil action against the
abortion provider for any knowing or reckless violation of
this title for actual and punitive damages.''.
SEC. 4. PREEMPTION.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law to
the extent that such State law establishes, implements, or
continues in effect greater protections for unborn children
from pain than the protections provided under this Act and
the amendments made by this Act.
SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.
The provisions of this Act shall be severable. If any
provision of this Act, or any application thereof, is found
unconstitutional, that finding shall not affect any provision
or application of the Act not so adjudicated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Deal) and the gentleman
[[Page H8765]]
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
General Leave
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and to insert extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child
Pain Awareness Act of 2006.
This legislation is intended to ensure that women seeking an abortion
are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn
child. It also ensures that women will have the chance to ask
questions; and, if they so choose, request that pain-reducing
medicines, anesthesia, or analgesia be administered to their unborn
child before the abortion takes place.
At the outset, it is important to clarify that this legislation is
not about the right to have an abortion. While citizens in other parts
of the world, such as in Europe and in Canada, have the opportunity to
vote and express their views on the issue of whether or not abortion
should be legal, the United States is the only industrialized country
in the world where its citizens do not have that right. The United
States Supreme Court has effectively taken it away from the American
people through its decisions.
As someone who believes in the sanctity of human life, I look forward
to a day when the American citizens on both sides of the abortion
debate can decide the issue democratically rather than having it
decided for them through judicial activism. I trust the American people
to make the right decision when that day comes.
But, Mr. Speaker, today rather than dealing with the legality of
abortion itself, this legislation deals with the issue of informed
consent for women choosing to have an abortion. The bill requires
abortion providers to inform women about the pain experienced by their
unborn child. It also requires women to be given a brochure and a
consent form demonstrating that they have had an opportunity to make an
inform decision on whether or not to administer pain mitigation to the
unborn child before the abortion is performed.
A significant body of medical evidence now indicates that fetuses
experience pain. Dr. Sunny Anand, a neurologist and the Nation's
leading expert on fetal pain, testified that ``the human fetus
possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if
not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense
than that experienced by term newborns or other children.''
Since Dr. Anand's groundbreaking research published in 1987 showed
that by 20 weeks these fetuses can feel pain, other researchers have
built on his work, further verifying the pain felt by the unborn. For
example, just this year British researchers performed brain scans on
premature babies as young as 23 weeks from fertilization and found new
physiological evidence that these premature infants feel pain.
But perhaps more important than the scientific studies, we know that
doctors who perform surgery on babies in the womb, as well as babies
who are born prematurely, some as early as 23 weeks of gestation,
routinely administer anesthesia to these children, just like an adult
who is undergoing surgery.
As Dr. Jean Wright, a physician in Savannah, Georgia, who specializes
in the care and anesthesia of critically ill children, testified before
Congress last year, ``If you came back with me to Savannah tonight and
came to our neonatal intensive care unit, we would stand between the
bed of a 23-week infant, a 26-week infant, and you would not need a
congressional hearing to figure out whether that infant feels pain. We
roll back the sheets or blanket, and you would look to the facial
expression, their response to the heel stick, you would understand
that.''
As I have stated before, the problem that this legislation seeks to
address is the issue of informed consent for women seeking abortions.
Like most of us, women who arrive at clinics seeking abortions are
usually not trained in the medical sciences. We rely on physicians to
provide all of the information needed to make an informed decision.
In the case of abortion, we need to make sure that women know all the
facts, including the evidence that unborn children feel pain. This is
obviously for the benefit of the unborn child who may either be spared
from abortion altogether or receive pain-reducing medicines.
Truly informed consent also benefits the woman who may decide against
having an abortion, or may decide to use pain mitigation for the unborn
child during the abortion procedure. Either way, she will be spared the
severe psychological trauma that may result from making an uninformed
decision.
This legislation is a commonsense measure that both pro-life and pro-
choice Members should support. In fact, NARAL, a large pro-abortion
organization, has publicly declared that they do not oppose the bill.
At this time, I would like to thank the lead sponsor of the bill, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for his work on this legislation
and for being a stalwart in the pro-life cause in Congress. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child Pain
Awareness Act of 2006. This bill mandates that a woman seeking an
abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy be given a written brochure
stating that research indicates that a fetus at that stage of
development will feel pain during an abortion.
This bill also requires a doctor to offer the woman anesthesia for
the fetus which she may either accept or decline.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with this legislation is that the medical
and scientific community has yet to reach a consensus with regard to
the issue of when and if a fetus feels pain. In fact, the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, along with physicians who
are experts in fetal anesthesia and fetal surgery, know of no
legitimate scientific data or information that supports these views.
Despite this, Congress has decided to play politics with women's
health.
This legislation may put women at risk. There is no evidence to show
the effects on a woman by providing anesthesia directly to a fetus
during an abortion. Without proper medical studies, we have no way of
knowing how such procedures will affect a woman's health at the time of
the abortion or in the future.
Mr. Speaker, supporters of this bill will argue that it includes an
assurance that doctors who disagree with materials contained within
these mandated brochures may offer their own views to patients. But
what good comes from a doctor handing their patient a brochure and then
conveying opposition to what is inside it? Instead of helping patients,
Congress is interfering with a doctor's best medical judgment as well
as the doctor-patient relationship.
Mr. Speaker, clearly written in this case by anti-choice advocates,
these brochures are biased and define an abortion as ``the process of
being killed.'' Normally I would support legislation which aims to
offer women as much information as possible with respect to their
medical decisions. Ensuring that patients have access to all of the
important and relevant medical information should always be a priority
for Congress, but this bill plays politics with those goals. Instead,
it provides mandated, misleading information to women without proper
scientific knowledge.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I think it is ill-
advised. I think it sets a bad precedent for the type of information
that is provided to patients. There is absolutely no reason why this
should be mandated.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the author of
this legislation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, most, perhaps everybody in
[[Page H8766]]
this House today, has had to deal at one time or another with the
emotional agony of a loved one dying from severe illness, an accident,
or perhaps even an act of violence.
One of the questions we often ask is, Did they suffer? How much pain
did they endure? Did we do everything we can to alleviate their pain?
Today, we can no longer deny, trivialize or gloss over the
significant and ever-expanding body of knowledge that shows that an
unborn child suffers real pain, excruciating pain, when he or she is
dismembered, as in a D&E abortion, or jabbed with scissors as in a
partial-birth abortion, or poisoned by an abortionist.
Not only is abortion violence against children, but we now know that
the abortion act itself is painful to the baby as well. As the
gentleman from Georgia pointed out a moment ago, Dr. Sunny Anand, an
expert on pain for the unborn and the neonates, has pointed out that
human fetuses possess the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of
gestation, if not earlier, and there is a whole growing body of
evidence that clearly demonstrates that. Meanwhile, approximately
18,000 unborn children at 20 weeks or beyond, are destroyed without
even the basic decency of pain relief.
Let me describe to you what one of the abortionists who now has
turned pro-life, says about the D and E abortion procedure. He did
about 10 abortions per week, Dr. Anthony Levatino, from New York, here
is how he described this D&E method of abortion. These are his words,
he did them: ``Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the
clamp to set the jaws and pull hard, really hard. You feel something
let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 4-5 inches long. Reach in
again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once
again and out pops an arm about the same length.
{time} 1130
Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine,
intestines, heart, and lungs. The toughest part of a D&E abortion is
extracting the baby's head. ``The head of the baby that age is about
the size of a plum,'' he goes on to say, ``and is now free floating
inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it
when the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will
allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp
and see a pure white gelatinous material issued from the cervix. That
was the baby's brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you
have a really bad day,'' he goes on to say, ``like I often did, a
little face may come out and stare right back at you.''
Mr. Speaker, this is a hideous, barbaric abuse of children. And, yes,
sadly we are not stopping it with this legislation. I wish we had the
ability to protect these children from this kind of child abuse. We
need to affirm both patients, mother and baby. That is what prenatal
care is all about. Our legislation is simply informed consent,
requiring that a brochure, not unlike those booklets given to women in
many States of the union that describe the growth of an unborn child
and any problems she may experience, be given to her since she has the
right to know this very important information.
Abortion methods kill, Mr. Speaker, and we need to at least allow
that child pain medication information be conveyed to the mother.
Most--perhaps everyone in the House today--has had to deal at one
time or another with the emotional agony of a loved one dying from
severe illness, an accident or perhaps even an act of violence.
One of the questions we often ask is how much did they suffer? How
much pain? Did we do everything possible to alleviate that pain?
Today, we can no longer deny, trivialize, or gloss over the
significant and ever expanding body of knowledge that shows that an
unborn child suffers real pain--excruciating pain--when he or she is
dismembered as in a D & E abortion, or jabbed with scissors in a
partial birth abortion, or poisoned by an abortionist.
Not only is abortion violence against children but we now know that
abortion is painful to the baby as well.
In expert testimony provided to the Northern District of the US
District Court in California during the partial birth abortion trials,
Dr. Sunny Anand, Director of the Pain Neurobiology Lab at Arkansas
Children's Hospital Research Institute said, ``the human fetus
possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if
not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense
than that perceived by term newborn's or older children.''
In testimony before the Virginia State Senate, Dr. Jean Wright of
Emory University School of Medicine said ``Aspects of pain architecture
begin as early as six to seven weeks, mature and are identified by
their anatomy, their physiology, and the coordination of responses so
that by 20-22 weeks of gestation, the evidence reveals a developed
system of pain perception and response. . . . The ability to modulate
or blunt the pain response does not develop until the last weeks of
pregnancy and the first few weeks of infancy, leading us to believe
that the pain perceived in the fetus is greater than that in the full-
term infant.
Dr. Anand further describes before the court that the'' highest
density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development
occurs in utero,'' while still in the womb, ``from 20 to 30 weeks
gestation. During this period, the epidermis is still very thin,
leaving nerve fibers closer to the surface of the skin than in older
neonates and adults.''
He went on to explain that the pain inhibitory mechanisms, in other
words fibers which dampen and modulate the experience of pain, do not
begin to develop until 32 to 34 weeks of gestation. Thus, Dr. Anand
concludes, a fetus 20 to 32 weeks of gestation would experience a much
more intense pain than older infants or children or adults when these
groups are subjected to similar types of injury.
Dr. Anand points out on the question of fetal consciousness that more
than 3 decades of research show that preterm infants are actively
perceiving, learning and organizing information, and are constantly
striving to regulate themselves, their environment and their
experiences. All preterm infants actively approach and favor
experiences that are developmentally supporting and actively avoiding
experiences that are disruptive.
Additionally a recent British study measured blood flow and oxygen in
the part of the brain that feels pain while blood was drawn during a
heel lance. The results showed a surge of blood and oxygen in the
sensory area of their brains, meaning the pain was processed in the
higher levels of the brain. Indicating that these little boys and girls
do feel pain.
Meanwhile approximately 18,000 unborn children at 20 weeks or beyond
are destroyed without the basic decency of pain relief. That means that
twice every hour a baby is destroyed without pain alleviation by
methods that include the D and E abortion.
The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is a modest but necessary
expansion of informed consent.
To date several states have enacted informed consent laws that convey
in booklet form to the mother the facts concerning development of an
unborn baby as well as risks associated with abortions.
Our bipartisan legislation simply ensures that new information
concerning pain capable in unborn babies be conveyed as well.
Under HR 6099, a woman considering an abortion at or past 20 weeks
fertilization must simply be given an HHS produced brochure describing
the most accurate and up to date information on unborn child pain.
After that, the mother is given a decision form on which she may either
request or decline pain relieving drugs for her baby prior to the
abortion.
Is it our hope that this additional information may dissuade a woman
from allowing her child to be killed? Absolutely.
I--we--believe good medicine should affirm the value, and dignity of
every human life. We need to affirm both patients--mother and child.
For the child dismembered by hideous and abusive abortion methods
like the D & E abortion that happen every day--the little girl or boy
at least shouldn't be made to suffer.
Here's how Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist describes the
painful D & E abortion.
``Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set
the jaws and pull hard--really hard. You feel something let go and out
pops a fully formed leg about 4-5 inches long. Reach in again and grasp
whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out
pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that
clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs. . . The
toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby's head. The head
of the baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free
floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have
hold of it if the [Sopher] clamp is spread about as far as your fingers
will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the
clamp and see a puer white gelatinous material issued from the cervix.
That was the baby's brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If
you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out
and stare back at you.''
[[Page H8767]]
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099 for many reasons.
Most glaringly is the fact that this bill is even up on the floor to
begin with. We have not passed our spending bills. We have not fixed
the looming physician fee reimbursement crisis, physicians who treat
pain every day. We have not increased the minimum wage. We are
inflicting pain on so many hardworking Americans. We have not
adequately provided for our veterans' health care. I am thinking of
veterans coming back from Iraq with relentless pain and the many unmet
needs. These are issues that affect millions and millions of Americans
every day.
Yet instead we are considering H.R. 6099, which may affect about 1
percent of the abortions performed annually in the United States and
which we know will not be considered in the Senate and therefore never
signed into law. We are wasting time today on a bill that is laden with
rhetoric but very little science. It is opposed by many of the most
reputable advocates for women's health, those on the front line of
service to women and babies who would best know. This includes, as my
colleague has said, the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, who represent medical doctors serving the health needs
of American women.
The legislation before us today proposes to insert narrow personal
views into the private conversations between women and their doctors.
As a health provider myself, I would shudder at the thought of having
to communicate something that is absent of scientific consensus to
patients. This is especially true when the legislation targets
pregnancies that are for the most part being terminated because of
health risks to the mother or fetus. Isn't that conversation already
excruciating enough for a woman and her family without the government's
unwarranted intrusion?
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' today on this bill both because
you believe in medical integrity and also because you believe that it
is our job to put America's true priorities first and foremost.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\
minutes to my colleague from Georgia, a physician, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Chairman Deal from
Georgia, for yielding.
This slow-talking Georgia physician can't say a whole lot in a
minute, but I hope my words will strike a nerve.
Just as the author's poster showed the striking of many nerves in
this procedure called late-term abortion on these infants, the youngest
of our children, I want to just relay to my colleagues an experience, a
life-changing experience, if you will. We have twin granddaughters,
identical twin granddaughters, born at 26 weeks. They will be soon
celebrating their 10th birthday. So we watched them for 80 days in the
neonatal intensive care nursery, and the neonatalogist would come by
every day and say we are not going to stick their heel again today
because it is too painful and we are going to make sure that we only
draw blood when it is absolutely necessary. And I, as a physician,
having delivered many of these premature, immature male infants, offer
anesthesia before a circumcision procedure. It is required as part of
an informed consent. So this is what this bill is about. It is informed
consent carried to its logical extent, and it is an act of compassion.
I commend the gentleman for the bill because this is simply trying to
make sure that the informed consent is there. And even the National
Abortion Rights League does not oppose this bill, and I commend them
for that.
I support wholeheartedly the legislation, and I commend
Representative Smith for this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this bill represents the
triumph of ideology and politics over science. The Congress of the
United States is going to tell doctors to give a brochure with
information that scientists do not believe is accurate. The American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes this bill, and this
is the professional society of physicians who know the most about the
care of pregnant women, and they have stated they know of no legitimate
scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus
experiences pain. Well, let me repeat that. This organization says they
know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the
statement that a fetus experiences pain. So the Congress in this bill
would tell doctors that they have to inform a woman of something that
most of these doctors do not believe to be scientifically accurate. It
is bad enough to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, but to
tell doctors that they have to give their patients inaccurate medical
information would not just be meddlesome. It is completely out of line.
It would be a dangerous precedent where we ask doctors to tell patients
something that is scientifically not valid in the most personal of
decisions of people's lives.
If we really care about women's informed consent, we should not force
doctors to misinform them.
I urge opposition to this bill. I regret that we have a scientific
matter just as we did in other cases like the right to life case in
Florida where the Congress wants to tell people what to do, not just
the women but their doctors, and this is an example of ideology and
politics, not good science informing our decisions. I urge strong
opposition to the bill.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, recent advances in ultrasound technology have
shown that unborn babies have the ability to recognize and respond to
positive and negative stimuli. In fact, researchers, scientists now
know that unborn children smile and cry. For years doctors have thought
that babies learn to smile from mimicking their parents. However,
researchers now know that an unborn child can be seen smiling in the
womb months before it was thought babies could make such expressions.
One of the London-based researchers, Dr. Stuart Campbell, said: ``It
is remarkable that a newborn baby does not smile for about 6 weeks
after birth. Before birth most babies smile frequently. This may
indicate a baby's calm, trouble-free existence in the womb, and the
relatively traumatic first few weeks after the birth when the baby is
reacting to a strange, new environment.''
Another group of researchers in New Zealand were testing the effects
of maternal smoking and drug use on unborn children. The co-author of
the study, Dr. Edward Mitchell of the University in Auckland, stated
that the research shows the baby has the necessary sensory and brain
development to process the offending sound and recognize it as
something negative.
Researchers observed deep inhalations and exhalations, open mouth,
quivering chin, with the low decibel noise on the abdomen. There were
many experiments that were done, but if unborn children can recognize
positive and negative stimuli in utero, imagine the excruciating pain
that must be felt during abortions.
I urge you to support the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that this bill is on the
Suspension Calendar, which is normally reserved for bills that are of
an uncontroversial nature, and it is clear just from the statements
that have already been made on our side of the aisle that this is a
very controversial bill. There are a lot of feelings back and forth on
the issue within the medical community, as has been explained by Mrs.
Capps and Mr. Waxman. There is a huge controversy over whether there is
a need for this information and whether or not the type of pain that is
described actually exists. So I would contend that it really does not
belong on the Suspension Calendar, and that is the main reason, I
think, why I would urge Members to vote against the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to
another physician, Dr. Weldon of Florida.
[[Page H8768]]
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia
for yielding.
I rise to speak in support of this legislation and just raise the
point, based on my review of the medical literature as a physician and
these are very well published reports, there is abundant evidence that
the neuropathways that generate pain responses are present at 20 or 22
weeks, possibly well before that. Indeed, one of the most well
respected researchers in this field who is trained in anesthesia and
pediatrics, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, testified that human fetuses possess
the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation.
I might also add that the new emerging field of fetal surgery, where
we are actually repairing spina bifida, for example, in unborn babies
as young as 16 weeks of age, there is actually a textbook about how you
deliver anesthesia to these babies, and it is recommended and it is
necessary to prevent movement because they experience pain.
Now, the other side may quote from a very bad study published in
JAMA. It was basically published by the abortion industry. To me it was
a disgrace to the Journal of JAMA that they would actually let
something like that be published trying to make the contrary claim.
But I think the scientific evidence is overwhelming and this
legislation is very, very badly needed. And I applaud the gentleman
from New Jersey for introducing this bill and the gentleman from
Georgia for bringing it forward, and I encourage all my colleagues to
vote in favor of this important legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding.
As always, I consider it a privilege to address this body and address
you, Mr. Speaker. Especially I consider it a privilege to address you,
Mr. Speaker.
I come to the floor to stand in support of the Unborn Child Pain
Awareness Act. It is a bit of bizarre debate from my perspective. I
believe the debate should be on what instant life begins rather than
how we might kill an unborn baby and especially on how we would avoid
perhaps inflicting pain on an unborn baby that is about to be killed,
and I am talking about 20 to 22 weeks and beyond.
We have a law in this country called the Humane Slaughter Act, which
says that an animal cannot be slaughtered unless it is rendered
unconscious in a rather painless way. We also have a law called the
Animal Welfare Act, which gives the Secretary of Agriculture authority
to regulate how laboratory animals might be euthanized in a
compassionate, humane fashion. And we can't raise up an unborn baby to
this level?
It is astonishing to me that we are here and that there are people
that oppose this bill. It is high time it has been brought to the
floor. It is a baby step, if you will, Mr. Speaker. And I applaud the
gentleman from New Jersey for being the lead on the Unborn Child Pain
Awareness Act.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I
thank Chris Smith for his leadership on many pro-life issues and this
one specifically.
{time} 1145
I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I would like
to quote Ronald Reagan, who stated, ``Medical science doctors confirm
that when the lives of the unborn are snuffed out they often feel pain,
pain that is long and agonizing.''
The topic of pain in the unborn, including whether or how early and
to what extent an unborn baby feels that pain, ignites heated debate.
Yet 77 percent of individuals who were surveyed not too long ago by
Zogby indicated that they favored this type of legislation, that
mothers ought to be aware of the pain that their unborn infants can
suffer through one of these terrible procedures. And as chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, we held hearings on this. And I would
state unequivocally that I believe that this legislation is
constitutional, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.
As Mr. King mentioned, we have laws about slaughtering cattle in this
country. We are talking about unborn children. Let's protect them.
Let's let the mothers know the pain that these unborn children could go
through.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, again, in response to the previous speaker, I think the
point should be made that right now, under the current law, there's
nothing to prevent a physician from advising a woman their opinion in
the manner of pain that might be inflicted on the fetus. The problem is
that legislation is imposing a mandate, a mandate that is based on
evidence that simply is not scientifically proven. And that is why we
have various medical organizations, most notably of course, the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and these are the
people that are experts on anesthesia. And they say again, I quote,
``that there is no legitimate scientific data or information that
supports the view this legislation purports with regard to the pain of
the fetus.''
And that is the problem here. This is a mandate, Mr. Speaker, and I
think it is a mistake to mandate that this be done when the science is
not clear. And again, this is a bill on the Suspension Calendar. I
would urge my colleagues to vote against it. We don't know what the
true science is.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, my Democrat colleague, on the
other side of the aisle there is making reference, I believe, to a
study that was done. The lead author of that was Susan Lee, who is a
lawyer for NARAL. That is not exactly a credible witness.
And what we have on the other side of the argument, you have Dr.
Myers and Dr. Bulich. They are authors of the textbook ``Anesthesia for
Fetal Intervention and Surgery.'' They are professors at Harvard
Medical School. And what they are explaining is that as we do these
different routine operations to little children, before they are born,
what we are doing is we are administering anesthesia because we
understand that they feel pain. This is common practice in the medical
community. And I am really amazed that anybody would be opposed to the
idea of simply giving a mother a choice, a choice as to whether to
administer anesthesia to her child. I mean, I hear these people. They
say they are pro-choice, and here is something that is choice, you can
administer anesthesia; oh, no, we are against that. You might impose on
giving them this opportunity to administer anesthesia. I can't
understand why anybody could oppose it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, a great man once said that a
society is measured by how it treats those in the dawn of life, those
in the shadows of life, and those in the twilight of life.
Because they are hidden, both in the dawn and in the shadows of life,
we kill 400 late-term unborn children every day in America using
methods that cause such agonizing pain to the child that it would be
illegal under Federal law if it was done to an animal.
This bill would call upon abortionists to offer an anesthetic to
assuage this agony to these children. Mr. Speaker, if we, as a human
family in America, cannot find that much humanity within ourselves, if
this human rights atrocity of dismembering our own children alive is
truly who we are, then the patriot's dream is lost, Mr. Speaker. Those
lying out in Arlington National Cemetery have died in vain, and
twilight has fallen upon all of us.
I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6099,
The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act introduced by my colleague,
Congressman Chris Smith.
[[Page H8769]]
This pro-information legislation ensures that women seeking an
abortion are fully informed of the pain experienced by their unborn
child at 20 weeks after fertilization.
In addition, the bill gives a woman the opportunity to request pain
medication for her child during the abortion procedure.
Mr. Speaker, administering pain medication to an unborn child at 20
weeks of development is not a novel concept. Unborn children undergoing
surgery in a mother's womb are given an anesthetic directly, and
premature babies of the same age are given pain relieving drugs during
medical operations.
At a minimum, a woman should be given the opportunity to request the
same pain-easing medication for her unborn child.
It is time for us to do the right thing and arm women with all of the
facts on abortion. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read the text of this brochure. As I
have said before, the problem with this legislation is it is a mandate,
a mandate that the woman receive this brochure. And then it mandates in
the legislation what the brochure should consist of. And I won't read
the whole text, but let me just read part of it. It says, ``There is a
significant body of evidence that unborn children at 20 weeks after
fertilization have the physical structures necessary to experience
pain. There is substantial evidence that at least by this point, unborn
children draw away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an
infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain.''
And then it goes on to say, ``You may request that anesthesia or
other pain-reducing drugs or drugs are administered directly to the
pain-capable unborn child if you so desire.''
And then, ``In some cases, there may be some additional risk to you
associated with administering such a drug.''
Now, you know, it is clear here that even the authors of this are not
saying that this is definitive, only that there is a significant body
of evidence that there may be pain experienced. And, it is also clear
that the authors of the legislation understand that there may be some
additional risk associated to the woman in administering such a drug.
So again, this is, to think that you are going to mandate this in a
brochure, when the scientific evidence of the impact on the fetus is
not clear, and when there is the possibility, a real one, it is
mentioned in here, that there may be additional risk to the woman, I
think is just really the wrong thing to do to have this as a mandate
that something has to be done.
And again, we are putting it on the Suspension Calendar, which is
supposedly for noncontroversial measures. And again, I would urge my
colleagues, we should not be putting this on the Suspension Calendar.
We should not be mandating something that is not clear and where there
may actually be additional risk to the woman herself. I think it is
simply a mistake.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative we take appropriate measures
to inform every woman who is seeking an abortion of the development of
the unborn child to feel pain in her womb at least 20 weeks after
fertilization. We have taken action to ensure that the pain of
livestock and laboratory animals is reduced and prevented, yet when it
comes to the unborn child we hesitate.
Every day unborn children have pain inflicted upon them, such as
poisoning and even dismemberment, when a woman chooses to abort. All of
this is without pain medicine. Studies show that fetuses respond to
touch by 8 weeks' gestation, and respond to sound by 20 weeks. If an
unborn child can recognize the positive and negative stimuli in the
womb, I can't imagine the excruciating pain that must be felt during an
abortion.
Today women are not fully informed of the extremely painful death
their child will endure during an abortion. At minimum, we must act to
ensure that abortion providers are legally obligated to inform every
woman about her right to request pain-reducing medicine for her baby.
Life is a gift from God and should be respected. I hope my colleagues
will join me in recognizing the pain unborn children experience during
abortion by supporting this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Sekula Gibbs), who is the third
physician to speak on this issue in favor of the legislation.
Ms. SEKULA GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Unborn
Child Pain Awareness Act. This bill is designed to provide information
to women who are seeking late-term abortions.
As a physician who believes in the sanctity of life, I would rather
be voting to ban abortions that are late term, but this bill is a step
in the right direction.
And also, as a physician who has practiced for over 20 years, I
support informed consent, and this is really what the bill is about. It
is about giving women the information that their unborn fetus can
experience pain. And the growing body of evidence suggests strongly,
and this body of evidence is growing and has grown from the time I have
been in medical school till now, that supports that fetuses do feel
pain. And it gives women the option, the same kind of option that we
have whenever our tooth is going to be extracted. Do you want
anesthesia for that? The same kind of option whenever you have a skin
biopsy. Do you want anesthesia for that? So it is an informed
opportunity for the woman to make this decision. And if anesthesia is
now routinely given to women when their fetus is undergoing surgery, it
is appropriate to allow them the same choices now.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Again, in response to the previous speaker, and I respect her
opinion, but there is nothing under the current law that doesn't allow
a woman to have the option of anesthesia in the manner in which the
gentlewoman describes. The problem here is that we are mandating that
they be given a brochure that provides information that is not
scientifically proven. We are not in any way, neither would I suggest,
that any woman not be able to opt for that kind of anesthesia. But the
issue here is whether we should be mandating that they be given a
brochure that is not at all clear, from a scientific point of view, as
to whether or not that pain is going to be felt and what the impact
might be on the woman herself. I just think that what the proponents of
this bill are suggesting is a mandate for something that is unclear.
And that is the wrong thing to do in this circumstance. I think it
creates a lot of confusion on the part of women who are in that
position, and it should simply be left up to the doctor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would say to Mr. Pallone that I
am prepared to yield the remaining time to Mr. Smith who will conclude
the debate on our side, if he has no other speakers.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I could just ask to make a minute
closing remark myself, and then I will yield back the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say again, and again I
respect my colleagues, particularly my colleague from New Jersey, who I
know truly believes in this issue and has spent a great deal of time on
the issue throughout his career, but I really think that in this case,
that we are making a huge mistake.
First of all, this is on the Suspension Calendar. It should not be.
This is a very controversial issue. It is still a huge controversy in
the scientific community, and for us to mandate that every woman in
this situation has to get what may be, in fact, misinformation, I think
is wrong. And so I would urge my colleagues to vote this bill down,
that it not be on the Suspension Calendar.
[[Page H8770]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to
Mr. Smith from New Jersey.
{time} 1200
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Unborn Pain Child Awareness Act is a
modest but necessary expansion of informed consent. Let me remind my
colleagues that in State after State throughout the country these
booklets like the one in my hand that describe fetal development are
given to the woman prior to an abortion. These kinds of informed
consent booklets have been vigorously opposed by the abortion lobby,
and we know for a fact from former as well as current-day abortionists
do not discuss the baby's pain. They rarely will talk about anything
that is even remotely connected with the humanity of the unborn child.
It is just not part of what they convey to the woman.
Let me also point out to my colleagues that the 2005 JAMA article
that is being pushed by members and the press has been part of a slick
disinformation campaign and is true junk science. The authors of that
study failed to point out that their conflict of interest. Susan Lee is
a medical student who was previously employed as a lawyer for NARAL,
and Eleanor Drey, runs the largest abortion clinic in San Francisco,
where they do 600 D and E or late-term abortions every year, those
hideous abortions where the baby is dismembered and she has been a very
strong advocate of partial birth abortion. Eleanor Drey too did not
disclose as one of the authors of that study her affiliation. Talk
about conflict of interest, and the study is riddled with holes.
Finally, what the legislation does, and let us be clear, it just
requires the informed consent brochure from the Department of Health
and Human Service and that the mother be given an informed consent form
to sign.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099,
the so-called Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. While this bill purports
to represent the findings of the scientific community, it is merely
sensationalistic junk science.
This bill would force doctors to violate their Hippocratic oath by
mandating that they provide women with incorrect, unsupported
information. It misleads women into believing that they need general
anesthesia for an abortion. By glossing over the established risks of
general anesthesia, this bill puts women's health at risk.
But don't take my word for it--look to the science. An August 2005,
Journal of the American Medical Association study states ``for pregnant
women, general anesthesia is associated with increased morbidity and
mortality, particularly because of airway-related complications and
increased risk of hemorrhage from uterine atony.''
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said it best
in their statement against this bill. ``Requiring a physician to
provide a patient with information that is not supported by scientific
fact violates the established doctrine of medical informed consent.''
As a scientist myself, I am embarrassed that this body would even
consider something so egregiously devoid of fact and scientific proof--
something that blatantly puts women's health at risk. But I'm not the
only scientist opposed to this bill.
The American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Public Health
Association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the National
Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health--to name a few.
All these groups oppose H.R. 6099. In total there are over 30
scientific, medical and advocacy organizations that are against this
bill.
This bill is nothing but pure political pandering at the expense of
science and women's health. Let's stop letting politics trump science.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, last month, I attended the Supreme Court
oral arguments on the so-called Partial Birth Abortion bill. You may
recall that like the bill we have before us today, that bill included
Congressional findings that found no basis in medical fact or science.
The bill we are debating today is pseudoscience. The American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in consultation with physicians who
are experts in fetal anesthesia and fetal surgery, knows of no
legitimate scientific data or information that supports the statement
that a fetus experiences pain. Requiring a physician to provide a
patient with information that is not supported by scientific fact
violates the established doctrine of medical informed consent. This
bill is a clear attempt by the current antichoice majority to once
again chip away at a woman's right to choose.
H.R. 6099 does not inform women who are seeking abortions, it
misinforms them. It forces doctors and nurses to distribute a brochure
filled with biased language written by anti-choice politicians, most of
whom have no medical experience. This bill has nothing to do with
improving women's healthcare or increasing access to medical
information. It is just one more attempt for politicians to impose
themselves on the unique and important doctor-patient relationship,
which should remain private.
Mr. Speaker, in these last days of the 109th Congress, the anti-
choice majority is lobbing a parting shot at American women. We
shouldn't be wasting our time on bills that impede access to healthcare
and impose further burdens on women seeking abortions.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 6099, a bill where the
science is unproven and the result is harmful.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099 because I
believe it is a woman's choice whether to terminate a pregnancy, and
oppose legislation requiring health care practitioners to tell a
patient information that may or may not be true.
I am concerned about the precedent we are setting by having the
Federal government mandate by law the medical advice doctors offer
their patients. It seems to me the last thing physicians want or need
is more federal intrusion into their practices.
I support a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy
subject to the restrictions of Roe v. Wade. Abortion is a very personal
decision. While a woman's doctor, clergy, friends, family and public
officials may have an opinion, the ultimate decision rests solely with
her. I would like to see abortion remain safe and legal, yet rare.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to
champion the principle of informed consent, which should concern each
and every one of us here today. I also want to thank Mr. Smith yet
again for his courageous and tireless dedication to the most vulnerable
persons among us, the unborn. His leadership on human rights is a
constant inspiration.
For over 30 years, our society has been torn apart by the issue of
abortion. There may be very few of us who have not been affected by the
emotional and physical pain of abortion, as experienced by millions of
women, children, and families throughout the country.
Modern therapeutic and diagnostic technologies make it increasingly
more difficult to deny the essential humanness of unborn children.
These technologies and sound, scientific research have enabled us to
conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that unborn children are able to
experience excruciating pain from 20 weeks of gestation.
It is my hope that one day we will all choose to open our hearts and
minds to the unborn and face the reality of abortion for what it is.
Until that day, let us at the very least work to ensure that women are
given the medical facts about fetal pain. Women deserve this respect.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are apparently so concerned about
the pain of unborn children that they are willing to promote junk
science and have Congress dictate the contents of a brochure given to
all women seeking to have an abortion. Where is the sense of urgency
for children once they are actually born? What has this Congress done
to address increasing rates of child poverty and hunger, decreasing
access to health care, and the abysmal state of education and child
care in this country?
Inevitably, my Republican colleagues say it's a ``state issue'' or
that there's not enough evidence that federal action would work. I
guess this bill proves that if the issue is important enough to the
Christian Right, federalism and evidence get tossed aside. If only the
needs of children or the demands of voters had similar power to break
through right wing ideology. This is a fitting end to the Congress that
found the time to meddle with Terri Schiavo and vote against the
fabricated war on Christmas but couldn't make time to finish nine
appropriations bills.
Mr. Speaker, the jig is up on this pathetic excuse for governing.
Let's begin a new direction for America by voting against this divisive
bill.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which purports to provide
[[Page H8771]]
women important information related to their health, but instead will
substitute ideology for scientific evidence.
The House of Representatives is again legislating morals and is
poking its nose where it doesn't belong.
This bill will require that family planning providers inform a
patient seeking a legal abortion after 20 weeks that there is
``substantial evidence'' that a fetus may feel pain during an abortion
procedure.
These women would be required to read and sign a form drafted by
Congress, which states that ``there is substantial evidence'' that the
abortion will cause pain to the fetus and they will be offered
medications intended to reduce pain administered directly to the fetus.
There is an ongoing debate in the scientific community on this issue.
Many scientists believe that there is too little information on the
effectiveness of medications administered directly to a fetus.
In fact, a federal court found in 2004, ``the issue of a fetus
feeling pain is unsettled in the scientific community . . . there is no
consensus of medical opinion on this issue,'' and ``much of the debate
is based upon speculation and inference.''
Proponents of this bill are claiming compassion for the unborn and
using biased ``scientific'' information to prove their misguided
ideology.
What would be compassionate is for this body to consider legislation
such as the Prevention First Act, which would help to reduce the number
of unintended pregnancies.
This is what we should be considering.
In reality, the goal of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is not
one based on compassion.
The goal is to undermine a woman's right to choose and to make what
is a difficult decision for many women, increasingly more difficult.
I urge all my colleagues to vote against this measure.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6099,
the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. H.R. 6099 is another heavy-handed
attempt by the majority to intrude into the doctor-patient
relationship. This legislation would proscribe a consent form that
states as medical fact unsubstantiated studies which have no consensus
in the medical community.
This legislation is meant to further undermine the U.S. Supreme
Court's Roe vs. Wade decision regarding a woman's right to privacy and
her ability to make personal medical decisions. Once again, instead of
allowing a controversial bill such as this one full and clear debate,
the House leadership is trying to sneak one by the American people on
one of the last days of a lame-duck session in a desperate attempt to
score political points with those factions who wish to deprive women of
their rights. And by putting it on the Suspension Calendar, they have
denied Members the opportunity to offer substantive amendments on these
important issues.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation so that we may
consider it, as well as substantive amendments that could improve it,
in the 110th Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 6099.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those voting have responded in the affirmative.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.