[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 30, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3180-H3191]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            PRENATAL NONDISCRIMINATION ACT (PRENDA) OF 2012

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 3541) to prohibit discrimination against the unborn 
on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3541

       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 ``Prenatal Nondiscrimination 
     Act (PRENDA) of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Women are a vital part of American society and culture 
     and possess the same fundamental human rights and civil 
     rights as men.
       (2) United States law prohibits the dissimilar treatment of 
     males and females who are similarly situated and prohibits 
     sex discrimination in various contexts, including the 
     provision of employment, education, housing, health insurance 
     coverage, and athletics.
       (3) Sex is an immutable characteristic ascertainable at the 
     earliest stages of human development through existing medical 
     technology and procedures commonly in use, including 
     maternal-fetal bloodstream DNA sampling, amniocentesis, 
     chorionic villus sampling or ``CVS'', and obstetric 
     ultrasound. In addition to medically assisted

[[Page H3181]]

     sex determination, a growing sex determination niche industry 
     has developed and is marketing low cost commercial products, 
     widely advertised and available, that aid in the sex 
     determination of an unborn child without the aid of medical 
     professionals. Experts have demonstrated that the sex-
     selection industry is on the rise and predict that it will 
     continue to be a growing trend in the United States. Sex 
     determination is always a necessary step to the procurement 
     of a sex-selection abortion.
       (4) A ``sex-selection abortion'' is an abortion undertaken 
     for purposes of eliminating an unborn child based on the sex 
     or gender of the child. Sex-selection abortion is barbaric, 
     and described by scholars and civil rights advocates as an 
     act of sex-based or gender-based violence, predicated on sex 
     discrimination. Sex-selection abortions are typically late-
     term abortions performed in the 2nd or 3rd trimester of 
     pregnancy, after the unborn child has developed sufficiently 
     to feel pain. Substantial medical evidence proves that an 
     unborn child can experience pain at 20 weeks after 
     conception, and perhaps substantially earlier. By definition, 
     sex-selection abortions do not implicate the health of the 
     mother of the unborn, but instead are elective procedures 
     motivated by sex or gender bias.
       (5) The targeted victims of sex-selection abortions 
     performed in the United States and worldwide are 
     overwhelmingly female. The selective abortion of females is 
     female infanticide, the intentional killing of unborn 
     females, due to the preference for male offspring or ``son 
     preference''. Son preference is reinforced by the low value 
     associated, by some segments of the world community, with 
     female offspring. Those segments tend to regard female 
     offspring as financial burdens to a family over their 
     lifetime due to their perceived inability to earn or provide 
     financially for the family unit as can a male. In addition, 
     due to social and legal convention, female offspring are less 
     likely to carry on the family name. ``Son preference'' is one 
     of the most evident manifestations of sex or gender 
     discrimination in any society, undermining female equality, 
     and fueling the elimination of females' right to exist in 
     instances of sex-selection abortion.
       (6) Sex-selection abortions are not expressly prohibited by 
     United States law or the laws of 47 States. Sex-selection 
     abortions are performed in the United States. In a March 2008 
     report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy 
     of Sciences, Columbia University economists Douglas Almond 
     and Lena Edlund examined the sex ratio of United States-born 
     children and found ``evidence of sex selection, most likely 
     at the prenatal stage''. The data revealed obvious ``son 
     preference'' in the form of unnatural sex-ratio imbalances 
     within certain segments of the United States population, 
     primarily those segments tracing their ethnic or cultural 
     origins to countries where sex-selection abortion is 
     prevalent. The evidence strongly suggests that some Americans 
     are exercising sex-selection abortion practices within the 
     United States consistent with discriminatory practices common 
     to their country of origin, or the country to which they 
     trace their ancestry. While sex-selection abortions are more 
     common outside the United States, the evidence reveals that 
     female feticide is also occurring in the United States.
       (7) The American public supports a prohibition of sex-
     selection abortion. In a March 2006 Zogby International poll, 
     86 percent of Americans agreed that sex-selection abortion 
     should be illegal, yet only 3 States proscribe sex-selection 
     abortion.
       (8) Despite the failure of the United States to proscribe 
     sex-selection abortion, the United States Congress has 
     expressed repeatedly, through Congressional resolution, 
     strong condemnation of policies promoting sex-selection 
     abortion in the ``Communist Government of China''. Likewise, 
     at the 2007 United Nation's Annual Meeting of the Commission 
     on the Status of Women, 51st Session, the United States 
     delegation spearheaded a resolution calling on countries to 
     condemn sex-selective abortion, a policy directly 
     contradictory to the permissiveness of current United States 
     law, which places no restriction on the practice of sex-
     selection abortion. The United Nations Commission on the 
     Status of Women has urged governments of all nations ``to 
     take necessary measures to prevent . . . prenatal sex 
     selection''.
       (9) A 1990 report by Harvard University economist Amartya 
     Sen, estimated that more than 100 million women were 
     ``demographically missing'' from the world as early as 1990 
     due to sexist practices, including sex-selection abortion. 
     Many experts believe sex-selection abortion is the primary 
     cause. Current estimates of women missing from the world 
     range in the hundreds of millions.
       (10) Countries with longstanding experience with sex-
     selection abortion--such as the Republic of India, the United 
     Kingdom, and the People's Republic of China--have enacted 
     restrictions on sex-selection, and have steadily continued to 
     strengthen prohibitions and penalties. The United States, by 
     contrast, has no law in place to restrict sex-selection 
     abortion, establishing the United States as affording less 
     protection from sex-based feticide than the Republic of India 
     or the People's Republic of China, whose recent practices of 
     sex-selection abortion were vehemently and repeatedly 
     condemned by United States congressional resolutions and by 
     the United States Ambassador to the Commission on the Status 
     of Women. Public statements from within the medical community 
     reveal that citizens of other countries come to the United 
     States for sex-selection procedures that would be criminal in 
     their country of origin. Because the United States permits 
     abortion on the basis of sex, the United States may 
     effectively function as a ``safe haven'' for those who seek 
     to have American physicians do what would otherwise be 
     criminal in their home countries--a sex-selection abortion, 
     most likely late-term.
       (11) The American medical community opposes sex-selection. 
     The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 
     commonly known as ``ACOG,'' stated in its 2007 Ethics 
     Committee Opinion, Number 360, that sex-selection is 
     inappropriate because it ``ultimately supports sexist 
     practices.'' The American Society of Reproductive Medicine 
     (commonly known as ``ASRM'') 2004 Ethics Committee Opinion on 
     sex-selection notes that central to the controversy of sex-
     selection is the potential for ``inherent gender 
     discrimination'', . . . the ``risk of psychological harm to 
     sex-selected offspring (i.e., by placing on them expectations 
     that are too high),''. . . and ``reinforcement of gender bias 
     in society as a whole.'' Embryo sex-selection, ASRM notes, 
     remains ``vulnerable to the judgment that no matter what its 
     basis, [the method] identifies gender as a reason to value 
     one person over another, and it supports socially constructed 
     stereotypes of what gender means.'' In doing so, it not only 
     ``reinforces possibilities of unfair discrimination, but may 
     trivialize human reproduction by making it depend on the 
     selection of nonessential features of offspring.'' The ASRM 
     ethics opinion continues, ``ongoing problems with the status 
     of women in the United States make it necessary to take 
     account of concerns for the impact of sex-selection on goals 
     of gender equality.'' The American Association of Pro-Life 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an organization with 
     hundreds of members - many of whom are former abortionists - 
     makes the following declaration: ``Sex selection abortions 
     are more graphic examples of the damage that abortion 
     inflicts on women. In addition to increasing premature labor 
     in subsequent pregnancies, increasing suicide and major 
     depression, and increasing the risk of breast cancer in teens 
     who abort their first pregnancy and delay childbearing, sex 
     selection abortions are often targeted at fetuses simply 
     because the fetus is female. As physicians who care for both 
     the mother and her unborn child, the American Association of 
     Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists vigorously opposes 
     aborting fetuses because of their gender.'' The President's 
     Council on Bioethics published a Working Paper stating the 
     council's belief that society's respect for reproductive 
     freedom does not prohibit the regulation or prohibition of 
     ``sex control,'' defined as the use of various medical 
     technologies to choose the sex of one's child. The 
     publication expresses concern that ``sex control might lead 
     to . . .dehumanization and a new eugenics.''
       (12) Sex-selection abortion results in an unnatural sex-
     ratio imbalance. An unnatural sex-ratio imbalance is 
     undesirable, due to the inability of the numerically 
     predominant sex to find mates. Experts worldwide document 
     that a significant sex-ratio imbalance in which males 
     numerically predominate can be a cause of increased violence 
     and militancy within a society. Likewise, an unnatural sex-
     ratio imbalance gives rise to the commoditization of humans 
     in the form of human trafficking, and a consequent increase 
     in kidnapping and other violent crime.
       (13) Sex-selection abortions have the effect of diminishing 
     the representation of women in the American population, and 
     therefore, the American electorate.
       (14) Sex-selection abortion reinforces sex discrimination 
     and has no place in a civilized society.
       (15) The history of the United States includes examples of 
     sex discrimination. The people of the United States 
     ultimately responded in the strongest possible legal terms by 
     enacting a constitutional amendment correcting elements of 
     such discrimination. Women, once subjected to sex 
     discrimination that denied them the right to vote, now have 
     suffrage guaranteed by the 19th amendment. The elimination of 
     discriminatory practices has been and is among the highest 
     priorities and greatest achievements of American history.
       (16) Implicitly approving the discriminatory practice of 
     sex-selection abortion by choosing not to prohibit them will 
     reinforce these inherently discriminatory practices, and 
     evidence a failure to protect a segment of certain unborn 
     Americans because those unborn are of a sex that is 
     disfavored. Sex-selection abortions trivialize the value of 
     the unborn on the basis of sex, reinforcing sex 
     discrimination, and coarsening society to the humanity of all 
     vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly 
     difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a 
     compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to 
     prohibit sex-selection abortion.
       (b) Constitutional Authority.--In accordance with the above 
     findings, Congress enacts the following pursuant to Congress' 
     power under--
       (1) the Commerce Clause;
       (2) section 5 of the 14th amendment, including the power to 
     enforce the prohibition on government action denying equal 
     protection of the laws; and
       (3) section 8 of article I to make all laws necessary and 
     proper for the carrying into

[[Page H3182]]

     execution of powers vested by the Constitution in the 
     Government of the United States.

     SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE UNBORN ON THE BASIS OF 
                   SEX.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec.  250. Discrimination against the unborn on the basis 
       of sex

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly--
       ``(1) performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is 
     sought based on the sex or gender of the child;
       ``(2) uses force or the threat of force to intentionally 
     injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a 
     sex-selection abortion;
       ``(3) solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a 
     sex-selection abortion; or
       ``(4) transports a woman into the United States or across a 
     State line for the purpose of obtaining a sex-selection 
     abortion;
     or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or 
     imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(b) Civil Remedies.--
       ``(1) Civil action by woman on whom abortion is 
     performed.--A woman upon whom an abortion has been performed 
     pursuant to a violation of subsection (a)(2) may in a civil 
     action against any person who engaged in a violation of 
     subsection (a) obtain appropriate relief.
       ``(2) Civil action by relatives.--The father of an unborn 
     child who is the subject of an abortion performed or 
     attempted in violation of subsection (a), or a maternal 
     grandparent of the unborn child if the pregnant woman is an 
     unemancipated minor, may in a civil action against any person 
     who engaged in the violation, obtain appropriate relief, 
     unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal 
     conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
       ``(3) Appropriate relief.--Appropriate relief in a civil 
     action under this subsection includes--
       ``(A) objectively verifiable money damages for all 
     injuries, psychological and physical, including loss of 
     companionship and support, occasioned by the violation of 
     this section; and
       ``(B) punitive damages.
       ``(4) Injunctive relief.--
       ``(A) In general.--A qualified plaintiff may in a civil 
     action obtain injunctive relief to prevent an abortion 
     provider from performing or attempting further abortions in 
     violation of this section.
       ``(B) Definition.--In this paragraph the term `qualified 
     plaintiff' means--
       ``(i) a woman upon whom an abortion is performed or 
     attempted in violation of this section;
       ``(ii) any person who is the spouse or parent of a woman 
     upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of this 
     section; or
       ``(iii) the Attorney General.
       ``(5) Attorneys fees for plaintiff.--The court shall award 
     a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs to a 
     prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection.
       ``(c) Loss of Federal Funding.--A violation of subsection 
     (a) shall be deemed for the purposes of title VI of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964 to be discrimination prohibited by section 
     601 of that Act.
       ``(d) Reporting Requirement.--A physician, physician's 
     assistant, nurse, counselor, or other medical or mental 
     health professional shall report known or suspected 
     violations of any of this section to appropriate law 
     enforcement authorities. Whoever violates this requirement 
     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 
     year, or both.
       ``(e) Expedited Consideration.--It shall be the duty of the 
     United States district courts, United States courts of 
     appeal, and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance 
     on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent 
     the disposition of any matter brought under this section.
       ``(f) Exception.--A woman upon whom a sex-selection 
     abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly 
     liable for any violation of this section, or for a conspiracy 
     to violate this section.
       ``(g) Protection of Privacy in Court Proceedings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except to the extent the Constitution or 
     other similarly compelling reason requires, in every civil or 
     criminal action under this section, the court shall make such 
     orders as are necessary to protect the anonymity of any woman 
     upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted if she 
     does not give her written consent to such disclosure. Such 
     orders may be made upon motion, but shall be made sua sponte 
     if not otherwise sought by a party.
       ``(2) Orders to parties, witnesses, and counsel.--The court 
     shall issue appropriate orders under paragraph (1) to the 
     parties, witnesses, and counsel and shall direct the sealing 
     of the record and exclusion of individuals from courtrooms or 
     hearing rooms to the extent necessary to safeguard her 
     identity from public disclosure. Each such order shall be 
     accompanied by specific written findings explaining why the 
     anonymity of the woman must be preserved from public 
     disclosure, why the order is essential to that end, how the 
     order is narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and why no 
     reasonable less restrictive alternative exists.
       ``(3) Pseudonym required.--In the absence of written 
     consent of the woman upon whom an abortion has been performed 
     or attempted, any party, other than a public official, who 
     brings an action under this section shall do so under a 
     pseudonym.
       ``(4) Limitation.--This subsection shall not be construed 
     to conceal the identity of the plaintiff or of witnesses from 
     the defendant or from attorneys for the defendant.
       ``(h) Definitions.--
       ``(1) The term `abortion' means the act of using or 
     prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other 
     substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the 
     clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge 
     that the termination by those means will with reasonable 
     likelihood cause the death of the unborn child, unless the 
     act is done with the intent to--
       ``(A) save the life or preserve the health of the unborn 
     child;
       ``(B) remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous 
     abortion; or
       ``(C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.
       ``(2) The term `sex-selection abortion' is an abortion 
     undertaken for purposes of eliminating an unborn child based 
     on the sex or gender of the child.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 249 the 
     following new item:

``250. Discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex.''.

     SEC. 4. SEVERABILITY.

       If any portion of this Act or the application thereof to 
     any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity 
     shall not affect the portions or applications of this Act 
     which can be given effect without the invalid portion or 
     application.

     SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require that a 
     healthcare provider has an affirmative duty to inquire as to 
     the motivation for the abortion, absent the healthcare 
     provider having knowledge or information that the abortion is 
     being sought based on the sex or gender of the child.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3541, as 
amended, currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act we are debating at this moment 
simply says that an unborn child cannot be discriminated against by 
subjecting him to an abortion based on the sex of the child. Because 
between 40 and 50 percent of African American babies--nearly one in 
two--are killed by abortion, which is five times, Mr. Speaker, the rate 
of white children, I believe with all of my heart that this bill should 
also prohibit race-targeted abortion as it did when the bill was first 
introduced.
  It is my hope that by protecting unborn children from being aborted 
based on their sex that one day very soon we will also recognize the 
humanity and justice of protecting unborn children regardless of their 
race or color as well, and simply because we recognize them as fellow 
human beings.
  Mr. Speaker, worldwide sex-selection abortion has now left the human 
family on Earth with approximately 200 million missing baby girls. 
Various United Nations organizations have battled sex-selection 
abortion for years. These agencies routinely refer to sex-selection 
abortion as ``an extreme form of violence against women.''
  In the New Atlantis magazine, political economist Nicholas Eberstadt, 
of the American Enterprise Institute, said:

       In terms of its sheer toll in human numbers, sex-selective 
     abortion has assumed a scale tantamount to a global war 
     against baby girls.

  In 2007, the United States spearheaded a U.N. resolution to condemn 
sex-selection abortion worldwide; yet here in the land of the free and 
the home of the brave, we are the only advanced country left in the 
world that still doesn't restrict sex-selection abortion in any way.
  Mr. Speaker, a number of academic papers have now published evidence 
that the practice of sex-selection abortion is demonstrably increasing 
here in the United States, especially, but not exclusively, in the 
Asian immigrant community.

[[Page H3183]]

  A study by researchers at the University of Connecticut, which was 
published in Prenatal Diagnosis, found that the male-to-female live 
birth sex ratio in the United States for Chinese, Asian Indians, and 
Koreans clearly exceeded biological variation for third births and 
beyond. Mr. Speaker, deliberate prenatal sex selection is the only 
plausible explanation.
  Dr. Sunita Puri and three other researchers at the University of 
California interviewed 65 immigrant Indian women in the United States 
who had sought or were seeking sex-selection abortion. They found that 
40 percent of the women interviewed had deliberately aborted unborn 
baby girls previously and that nearly 90 percent of the women who were 
currently carrying unborn baby girls were also currently seeking to 
abort them.
  This was an incredibly powerful study, Mr. Speaker. It discussed in 
detail the multiple forms of pressure and outright coercion to which 
these women are often subjected. Sixty-two percent of the women 
described verbal abuse from their husbands or female in-laws, and fully 
one-third of women described past physical abuse and neglect, all 
related specifically to their failing to produce a male child. As a 
result, these women reported aborting multiple unborn baby girls in a 
row because of the pressure that was put on them to have a male child.
  Mr. Speaker, sex-selection abortion is extreme violence against both 
unborn baby girls and their mothers. It has been a primary enforcement 
mechanism for China's forced abortion and ``one child'' policy for many 
years. It has dramatically increased sex trafficking and violence 
against women due to the imbalanced sex ratios left in its wake across 
the world, and we now know that it is a tragic circumstance into which 
many women are also being coerced. This evil practice has now allowed 
thousands of little girls in America and millions of little girls 
across the world to be brutally dismembered, most of them in their 
second or third trimester and when they are capable of feeling extreme 
pain, simply because they were little girls instead of little boys, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Sex selection is violence against women, and it is the truest kind of 
war against women, and it has now brought humanity to a place where the 
three deadliest words on this Earth are ``it's a girl.'' What in God's 
name have we come to, Mr. Speaker? I've often asked myself what finally 
enlightened and changed the hearts of those across history who have 
either perpetrated or supported or ignored the atrocities and human 
genocides of their day.
  While I probably will never fully understand, I believe I caught a 
glimpse of the answer from my 3-year-old little girl, Gracie. As I was 
holding her and we were watching her favorite laughing baby videos on 
YouTube, I inadvertently clicked on a video that showed a young man 
from China who was playing poignant and beautiful music on the piano 
with his feet because both of his arms had been amputated when he was a 
child.
  In trying to seize on a teaching moment, Mr. Speaker, I said, ``Look 
at that, Gracie. He's playing the piano with his feet. Isn't that 
amazing?''
  But with a stricken little look on her face, Gracie said, ``But, 
Daddy, he doesn't have any arms.''
  I said, ``I know, Baby, and that's very sad, isn't it?''
  And she said, ``Oh, Daddy, it is very sad. We've got to help him. 
We've just got to. We've got to get some arms and give it to him.''
  I said, ``But, Baby, there aren't any extra arms. They're all hooked 
onto other people.''
  And she thought for a moment and looked at me with wet little eyes 
and pulled up her sleeve and held up her little arm and said, ``But, 
Daddy, can I give him one of my arms if it will fit on him?''
  Across human history, the greatest and most loving voices among us 
have always emphasized the critical responsibility each of us has to 
recognize and cherish the light of divine, eternal humanity shining in 
the soul of every last one of our fellow human beings. I believe there 
is an answer to some of these seemingly unanswerable questions, Mr. 
Speaker, that face the human families and how we see each other. On 
that YouTube video, I saw an amazing young man who played heart-
stirring music with his feet, but my little girl saw a child of God who 
had no arms and wanted to give him one of hers.
  And how very thankful I am that my little Gracie was not one of the 
hundreds of millions of little girls whose lives and hearts were torn 
from this world before they ever saw the light of sunrise simply 
because they were little girls instead of little boys.
  I know that this Congress deals with many controversial issues where 
it is sometimes difficult for Republicans and Democrats to find common 
ground, but I refuse to believe that we cannot find enough humanity in 
this body to conclude together that it is wrong to knowingly kill 
unborn children because they are baby girls instead of baby boys.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Members of the House, I want to thank the leadership on the other 
side for requiring that the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, the gentleman from Arizona, drop ``race'' from this 
Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, so-called. So it's now just sex 
selection.
  This is the latest in a long series of measures intended to chip away 
at a woman's right to seek safe and legal medical care. It tramples the 
rights of women under the guise of nondiscrimination while doing 
absolutely nothing to provide women with the needed resources so that 
their babies--female and male--can come into the world healthy, and so 
that both mother and child can thrive.
  I am grateful that the proponents of this bill have stopped making 
the ridiculous charge that I used to hear, that reproductive freedom is 
worse than slavery, and invoking at the same time the name of the great 
abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass in the service of their cause. 
It was deeply offensive, and I'm glad that we won't have to listen to 
that anymore.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mrs. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3541, the 
Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, PRENDA, introduced by Representative 
Trent Franks.
  As the mother of a daughter, I am disturbed by what I am hearing 
about sex selection occurring in the United States. A 2008 Columbia 
University report found that there is strong son bias and there is 
clear evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage. The 
victims of sex-selection abortions are predominantly female and most 
are later term, which means that these gruesome abortions are occurring 
after the child becomes pain capable.
  In 2007, the United States spearheaded an international resolution to 
condemn sex selection; however, there are no laws preventing or 
prohibiting the practice in the United States. And while I stand here, 
I think about just yesterday as I watched as my little granddaughter--
inside her mother's womb--turned towards that ultrasound.
  This issue of life is a divisive one in politics, but I think all 
Americans can agree aborting babies because they are the wrong sex is 
just plain wrong.
  Let's put a stop to this egregious practice, and let's pass this 
legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield as much time as 
he may consume to the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee, 
the distinguished gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called ``Prenatal 
Nondiscrimination Act.''
  Today, the Republican majority continues its war on women in a new 
and creative way, by attempting to couch legislation that would destroy 
women's fundamental constitutional rights as a women's rights law. It 
is cynical, but creative.
  Trying to destroy women's constitutional rights, and pretending that 
it is somehow being pro-woman, plays well to the far-right wing base, 
but does nothing to help American families get

[[Page H3184]]

on their feet and put people back to work.
  This bill criminalizes abortion prior to viability. It makes pre-
viability abortions a crime under certain circumstances, a flagrantly 
unconstitutional provision under Roe v. Wade.
  Under this bill, a relative who disagreed with a woman's choice would 
be able to sue a doctor simply by alleging that the woman had an 
impermissible motive. The doctor would face years of litigation at 
great expense. A relative could even obtain an injunction blocking an 
abortion from going forward merely by alleging that the abortion is 
being done for the purposes of sex selection. While the matter is being 
litigated, the pregnancy would go forward so that, regardless of the 
merits, a woman would be compelled by a court injunction to proceed 
with her pregnancy against her will, perhaps to have an abortion at a 
much later stage with a much more mature fetus.
  Any clinic employee who suspected--merely suspected--that a woman's 
motives ran afoul of this law would have a legal obligation, under 
penalty of prison, to report that suspicion to law enforcement.
  How would this affect the basic practice of medicine?
  H.R. 3541 would force health care providers to inquire into women's 
reasons for seeking abortion services. Physicians would have to 
consider whether women seeking routine non-abortion services, such as 
determining the sex of the fetus, might then use that information in 
deciding whether to continue a pregnancy.
  Given the severe civil and criminal penalties in this bill, doctors 
would be forced to police their patients, read their minds, and conceal 
information from them. The failure to do so would put medical 
professionals at risk of prosecution and lawsuits.
  This bill is facially unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held, 
beginning with Roe v. Wade and in Casey and subsequent cases, that the 
decision of whether to have a child or whether to end a pregnancy is a 
private one. Up until the point of viability, the government may not 
make that decision for a woman. Following viability, the government may 
regulate or bar an abortion, except when the abortion is necessary to 
protect the life or health of the woman.
  The preference for male children is a real, if limited, phenomenon in 
the United States. Some women face familial and community preference to 
have male children, and that pressure can increase with each subsequent 
birth. But this bill does nothing to help those women.
  This bill cites the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women 
as urging governments to prevent sex-selective abortions, but it 
ignores the concerns of those who work on this problem, such as the 
U.N. Population Fund, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for 
Human Rights, the U.N. Children's Fund, the U.N. Women, and the World 
Health Organization, that abortion restrictions are not the solution 
because they put women's health and lives in jeopardy and violate 
women's human and reproductive rights.
  Where is the legislation providing women with the means to achieve 
independence so that they are not subject to community and family 
pressures? My Republican colleagues opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 
Pay Act that would have done just that. We all had to watch the charade 
recently where Republicans pretended they weren't going after the 
Violence Against Women Act with a meat-ax. Where is the support for 
family planning services so we have fewer unplanned pregnancies and, 
therefore, fewer abortions? Where is the commitment to maternal and 
child health programs?
  But all this costs money, it won't do anything to undermine Roe v. 
Wade, and it doesn't play well in the world of abortion politics.
  I urge the Members of this House to reject this cynical, dishonest, 
and hypocritical legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called ``Prenatal 
Nondiscrimination Act.''
  Today, the Republican majority continues the war on women in a new 
and creative way, by attempting to couch legislation that would destroy 
women's fundamental constitutional rights as a women's rights law. It 
is cynical, but creative.
  Our nation's economy is struggling to recover. Families are 
struggling to keep their homes, and provide a better future for their 
children.
  And what is the majority doing about it? Nothing. Today we have yet 
another radical foray into divisive social issues. Trying to destroy 
women's constitutional rights, and pretending that it is somehow being 
``pro-woman,'' plays well to the far right-wing base, but does nothing 
to help American families get on their feet, and put people back to 
work.
  This is election-year politics at its absolute worst.
  Despite the fact that this bill is couched in the language of civil 
rights, indeed it amends the civil rights crimes chapter of the federal 
Criminal Code, it is nothing more than yet another attack on the 
fundamental constitutional rights of women. It does not improve their 
ability to choose to have a healthy and successful pregnancy. It does 
not improve the prospects for their children once those children come 
into the world. It does nothing to help women who are subject to 
community pressure to have sons. It does nothing to improve the lot of 
women who may really need our help.
  This bill criminalizes abortion, prior to viability; it makes 
previability abortions a crime under certain circumstances, a 
flagrantly unconstitutional provision under Roe.
  Under this bill, a relative who disagreed with a woman's choice would 
be able to sue a doctor simply by alleging that the woman had an 
impermissible reason. The doctor would face years of litigation at 
great expense.
  A relative could even obtain an injunction blocking an abortion from 
going forward merely by alleging that the abortion is being done for 
the purposes of sex selection. While the matter is being litigated, the 
pregnancy would go forward so that, regardless of the merits, a woman 
would be compelled by a court injunction to proceed with her pregnancy 
against her will.
  Any clinic employee who suspected--merely suspected--that a woman's 
motives ran afoul of this law would have a legal obligation, under 
penalty of prison, to report that suspicion to law enforcement.
  How would this affect the basic practice of medicine?
  H.R. 3541 would force health care providers to inquire into a woman's 
reasons for seeking abortion services. Physicians would have to 
consider whether women seeking routine non-abortion services, such as 
determining the sex of the fetus, would then use that information in 
deciding whether to continue a pregnancy.
  The more information the doctor has, and the more he shares with his 
patient, the greater the risk that someone could argue that the 
abortion was for a prohibited purpose, and that he knew it.
  Given the severe civil and criminal penalties in this bill, doctors 
would be forced to police their patients, read their patients' minds, 
and conceal information from them. The failure to do so would put 
medical professionals at risk of prosecution and lawsuits.
  Do you want to see defensive medicine? Try making this law.
  This bill is facially unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held, 
beginning with Roe v. Wade, and in Casey and subsequent cases, that the 
decision whether to have a child, or whether to end a pregnancy, is a 
private one. Up until the point of viability, the government may not 
make that decision for a woman. Following viability, the government may 
regulate or bar an abortion, except when the abortion is necessary to 
protect the life or health of the woman.
  This bill would bar a woman from having an abortion at any time on 
the basis of her motives.
  While this bill may be an unconstitutional intrusion into women's 
private choices, it does nothing to help women or their children. 
That sort of legislation is not on the agenda here, or in this 
Republican controlled Congress.

  The bill contains flat out lies. For example, it contains a 
``finding'' that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks, even though this 
is a fringe position rejected by the mainstream of medical science. A 
survey of available research published in the Journal of the American 
Medical Association in 2005 concluded that ``[e]vidence regarding the 
capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception 
of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.'' Similarly, a detailed 
survey by the Royal Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
concluded:

       In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence 
     in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the 
     periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of 
     gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the 
     cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded 
     that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to 
     this gestation.

  But why let the facts get in the way of some nice rhetoric?
  The preference for male children is a real if limited phenomenon in 
the United States. Some women face familial and community preference to 
have male children and that pressure can increase with each subsequent 
birth.

[[Page H3185]]

  But this bill does nothing to help those women.
  While H.R. 3541 cites the United Nations Commission on the Status of 
Women as urging governments to prevent sex selective abortions, it 
ignores the concerns expressed by those who work on this problem--such 
as the United Nations Population Fund, the Office of the United Nations 
High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Children's Fund, 
United Nations Women, and the World Health Organization--that abortion 
restrictions are not the solution because they put women's health and 
lives in jeopardy and violate women's human and reproductive rights.
  The Judiciary Committee heard from Miriam Yeung, of the National 
Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, who discussed how Congress could 
address the male child preference issue in a manner that is effective 
and that supports women rather than stigmatizing them. She explained:

       Son preference is a symptom of deeply rooted social biases 
     and stereotypes about gender. Gender inequity cannot be 
     solved by banning abortion. The real solution is to change 
     the values that create the preference for sons. . . . We are 
     working with members of our own community to empower women 
     and girls, thereby challenging norms and transforming values.

  Where is the legislation providing women with the means to achieve 
independence so that they are not subject to community and familial 
pressures? My Republican colleagues opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 
Pay Act that would have done just that. We all had to watch the charade 
recently where Republicans pretended they weren't going after the 
Violence Against Women Act with a meat-ax. Where is the support for 
family planning services so we have fewer unplanned pregnancies and, 
therefore, fewer abortions? Where is the commitment to maternal and 
child health programs?
  There are many things Congress could do to assist women, including 
women who are under pressure from their families or communities to 
terminate a pregnancy--strategies that have worked and that assist 
women rather than turn them into suspects or pariahs. We can work with 
their doctors and provide necessary resources to women and their 
families.
  But that costs money, it won't do anything to undermine Roe v. Wade, 
and it doesn't play well in the world of abortion politics.
  I urge the members of this House to reject this cynical and 
destructive legislation.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), the vice chairman of the Judiciary 
Immigration Subcommittee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
his leadership on this issue and many other issues, and I come to the 
floor here in strong support of the PRENDA Act.
  The very idea of sex-selection abortion, gendercide, as it was so 
aptly named, brought back to mind for me a story that I heard from a 
man whom I admired. His name was Gil Copper. Sadly, we lost him back in 
2010.
  Gil Copper was a World War II veteran who volunteered with Merrill's 
Marauders in Asia and marched across those areas in India and Burma to 
take on the Japanese behind the scenes. Gil Copper picked up and was 
awarded one Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, one Combat Infantry Badge, 
and one Purple Heart.
  Gil Copper spent his time off in Asia under the bridge in New Delhi, 
India, standing in the Ganges River listening for the splash. Standing 
there day or night, any time he had off, he was listening for the 
splash of a little baby girl that would often and regularly be tossed 
off the bridge into the river to drown because the culture in India 
cherished boys and didn't cherish girls. Gil Copper would swim out 
there and pick up those little girls that were floating then in the 
filthy Ganges River and swim back with them and dry them off and carry 
them to the Catholic orphanage in New Delhi. He saved scores of lives 
during that period of time.
  That culture has arrived here in this country, and this bill puts an 
end to that kind of culture that would select baby girls for death.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, a distinguished member of the 
House Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about civil 
rights, but it's simply another attempt to chip away at a woman's right 
to choose. It's part of the Republican war on women, also known as WOW. 
I'm like, Wow, why are we continuing to attack women like this? Wow, 
it's men against women.
  What's happening is we're in a political year, ladies and gentlemen, 
and politics has been good to the Republicans as of late. They have 
pitted people who favor immigration against those who do not support 
it. They have divided people on affirmative action from African 
Americans. They have divided people on the issue of gays living in 
America. These are all diversionary issues. They've been attacking 
labor and saying that it is because of labor that you don't have what 
you should have.

                              {time}  1550

  It's a political season, and so this is what they are doing with this 
bill. It's pitting the men against the women.
  This bill seeks to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the 
basis of gender, but it's really part of the divide-and-conquer 
approach that has been hugely successful for these Republicans. It 
would require doctors to become mind readers, ladies and gentlemen, and 
require them to determine what the sex of the child is and whether or 
not that is a factor in a woman's determination to have an abortion. 
It's ridiculous.
  It's shameful many of the supporters of this bill are the same ones 
who voted to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and the Teen 
Pregnancy Prevention Initiative. That's funding that would have helped 
prevent unintended pregnancies. They also voted, ladies and gentlemen, 
to repeal, and repeatedly they have voted to repeal, the Affordable 
Care Act, which has improved the health of uninsured women and 
children. Recently, they supported Rush Limbaugh in his attack on women 
and access to contraception.
  You see, this is part of the war on women. Wow. The record is 
shameful and it's clear.
  Instead of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose, we should 
unite behind policies that prevent unintended pregnancies in the first 
place. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle), a member of the Oversight & 
Government Reform Committee.
  Ms. BUERKLE. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his excellent 
work on this important bill.
  I rise this afternoon in support of H.R. 3541 as a woman, as a mother 
of four daughters, and as a grandmother of three granddaughters.
  Mr. Speaker, there can be no rights for women if we don't allow them 
the right to life. What we are hearing from the other side this 
afternoon is about money and about political campaigns and about the 
rhetoric of the war on women. This is the ultimate war on women, Mr. 
Speaker. If we don't allow women to be born, we cannot talk about any 
other rights.
  So I stand here today, and I urge all of my female colleagues in this 
House of Representatives to stand together and support H.R. 3541.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
physician, the gentleman from Washington, the Honorable Dr. McDermott.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to this debate, I am not sure 
if we are talking about India or China, but where are we talking about 
here? The Republicans have set up another straw man.
  This bill is another Republican attack on women's rights at the same 
time it's masquerading as an antidiscrimination bill. It's about as 
cynical and deceptive as anything I've seen on the floor.
  I ask the proponents of this bill: If you care, Mr. Speaker, if they 
care about discrimination against women, why did they vote in the last 
Congress against women's rights to challenge gender-based pay 
discrimination? Why did you also vote to allow health insurers to 
continue charging women higher premiums based on their sex?
  These votes are on the record. That's what you think of women.
  My friend, this bill is not what it claims to be. It is not about 
fighting discrimination against women. It is the opposite. It is 
another Republican intrusion into a woman's right to choose. Women 
should be able to make such

[[Page H3186]]

sensitive and private decisions with their families, their doctors, and 
their God, free from the fear of the police.
  What are you going to do, set up a registry every time they do a 
sonogram and they decide what the baby is, girl or boy, they are going 
to post it and then they are going to follow? If that woman then 
decides to have an abortion, well, she is getting rid of a girl, so we 
are going to criminally charge her with making that decision on the 
basis of the sex of the child. That's what kind of nonsense you are 
setting up.
  For people who don't want government in people's lives, who argue 
over and over and over about keeping the government--in fact, we don't 
want ObamaCare. We don't want government in our lives at all. But in 
this one, you want them to go right into the personal mind of the woman 
and decide and criminally charge her.
  Do you think that's going to do any good? You simply are attacking 
women's rights.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to speak in 
the third person, not in the second person, in their remarks on the 
floor.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Of course, the gentleman knows there's no 
criminal thing in this bill for the women. That's an unfortunate 
fallacy.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, 
a member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. FLEMING. I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Franks of Arizona, 
for authoring this fine bill.
  You know, I find that gender-oriented abortion is problematic for two 
reasons. Number one is very obvious. The taking of an innocent life 
merely because that child happens to be a boy or a girl certainly goes 
against all the values that we hold true in America. But, secondly, 
because of the technology requiring that you are well into the second 
trimester even to determine the gender of the fetus means that we're 
talking about a mid- to late-term abortion, something that is so 
brutal.
  Mr. Speaker, as a family physician and a father of four, two boys and 
two girls, I have delivered over 300 babies in my career. Each and 
every child, regardless of his or her gender, is a unique individual, 
deserving of equal protection under the law. The American people agree 
with me on this. In fact, polls show that over two-thirds of Americans 
are supportive of eliminating abortion practices tailored to destroy 
babies because of their gender.
  Gender aside, which is really what this is, the deliberate 
annihilation of a particular sex, often unborn female children, as we 
know, generally occurs midway through pregnancy. These late-term 
abortions are grisly procedures, where the condemned is often poisoned 
or dismembered before being extracted from the womb, sometimes in 
pieces. Medical evidence shows that, at a minimum, unborn babies can 
experience pain at 20 weeks.
  I ask my colleagues to support this bill, H.R. 3541.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the former chair of 
the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlewoman from Oakland, 
California, Barbara Lee.
  Ms. LEE of California. First, let me thank Congressman Conyers for 
yielding the time, but also for your very bold and relentless 
leadership as our ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee.
  I rise today as a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus and 
also as the Health Care Task Force chair of the Congressional Asian 
Pacific American Caucus. I rise in strong opposition to this bill.

                              {time}  1600

  Supporters of this bill claim that the legislation would combat sex-
selection abortion and prevent the United States from becoming a safe 
haven for women seeking an abortion based on the sex of the pregnancy.
  Here we go again. This war on women continues. And this, quite 
frankly, is a shocking battle in this war. It really is shock and awe.
  Don't get me wrong. Of course we all are opposed to sex-selection 
abortion based on gender. That's not what this is about. This is about 
women's health care and gender discrimination.
  Let me read a paragraph from a letter signed by the American Congress 
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other groups:

       If passed into law, this bill would require that medical 
     and mental health professionals violate doctor-patient 
     confidentiality and report known or suspected violations of 
     the law to law enforcement authorities. The penalty for 
     failure to report is a fine or incarceration of up to 1 year.

  Shock and awe. This is a continuation of the war on women.
  There are those who have been actively working to reverse much of the 
progress women have made by declaring this war on women that includes 
stripping reproductive rights for women and cutting critical Title X 
funding and for the WIC nutrition program for low-income infants and 
pregnant women. And yes, this war on women continues with slashed 
funding for food stamps and day care spending.
  Let's call it what it is, Mr. Speaker. Supporters of this bill really 
are exploiting serious issues like racism and sexism in a backdoor 
attempt to make abortion illegal. It would also lead to further 
stigmatization of women, especially Asian Pacific American women, who 
seek their constitutional rights to an abortion.
  The ramifications are real, and they are very dangerous. Attempts to 
restrict or deny access to safe abortions is harmful to women's health 
and would ultimately take us back to the days of back-alley abortions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentleman.
  If this bill passes, it would forever change the doctor-patient 
relationship as we know it by casting suspicion on doctors that serve 
communities facing the greatest health disparities, many of which are 
minority communities.
  As a woman of faith, I have always believed that decisions about 
whether to choose adoption, end a pregnancy, or raise a child must be 
left to a woman, her family, and her faith, with the counsel of her 
doctor or health professional. Politics--government--has no place 
preventing doctors and other health professionals from informing 
patients about all their health care options, and doctors should not be 
criminalized for providing constitutionally protected care.
  If supporters are really serious about advancing the real interest of 
women, I urge them to vote ``no'' on this bill. We need to work 
together to ensure that all women have meaningful access to the health 
care that they need to stay healthy and to improve their own lives and 
their children's lives.
  We need to make sure that women get equal pay for equal jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. I just want to conclude by saying if you 
really care about women and their children and their families, we need 
to work to end wage discrimination in this country. We need to work to 
end domestic violence that's tearing apart families across this country 
and reauthorize a real Violence Against Women's Act. We need to reject 
this insidious attack on Roe v. Wade.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. STEARNS. Let me say to the gentlelady and to Mr. Johnson and Mr. 
Nadler: This is a war on ethics or WOE. You talk about a war on women. 
This is a war on ethics. Woe to you if you vote against this bill.
  Mr. Nadler was down here talking about this bill and how he's going 
to vote against it. But let me ask you: Is there anybody in this 
Chamber that wants to vote against sex-selection abortion? Is that what 
you want to do? The coercion of sex-selection abortion, is that what 
you want to do? The solicitation or acceptance of funds for sex-
selection abortion, you want to vote against that? And lastly, the 
transportation of a woman into the country to obtain a sex-selection 
abortion, you want to vote against that?
  Woe to you. War on ethics. This is wrong for you to do that.
  In a recent letter, the Planned Parenthood has once again chosen to 
put profits before women's well-being and is encouraging Members of 
Congress to

[[Page H3187]]

oppose this legislation, reinforcing sex discrimination and positioning 
the United States of America as a safe haven for those who cannot 
legally acquire a sex-selection abortion in their own home countries. 
But this is not surprising, considering Planned Parenthood's record.
  As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, I have led an investigation into Planned 
Parenthood's use of the more than $1 million of Federal funds they 
receive every day and their compliance with sexual assault and child 
abuse reporting laws. This was the first ever such investigation in 
Planned Parenthood's history.
  Planned Parenthood has an extensive and well-documented record of 
improper Medicaid billing practices--all of you know that; you can go 
to the State of California and New York and read about those 
indictments--and violating State sexual assault and child abuse 
reporting laws and of encouraging young girls to simply lie about their 
ages to circumvent State reporting laws.
  These four things in this bill, woe to you--war on ethics--if you 
vote against this bill. And I am just amazed that people of strong 
religious belief would come on this floor and say that you're going to 
believe that sex-selection abortion is okay. I can't even comprehend 
what you're doing.
  So let me just close by saying I encourage all of my colleagues, both 
Democrats and Republicans, to support this lifesaving legislation and 
ban sex-selection abortions and to send a clear message that each and 
every girl is valued in our society.
  My colleagues, with passage of this critical legislation, the United 
States will finally join the rest of the industrialized world in 
prohibiting the barbaric practice of using abortion as a method of sex 
selection. It is astounding that in a country that prohibits 
discrimination on the basis of sex in various contexts, such as 
employment, education, and housing, it is legal to abort a child simply 
because she's a girl.
  Pure and simple, these abortions are female infanticide. The victims 
of sex-selection abortion are overwhelmingly female, and most sex-
selection abortions are grisly, later-term abortions, likely occurring 
after the child becomes capable of feeling pain.
  In a recent letter, Planned Parenthood has once again chosen to put 
profits before women's well-being and is encouraging Members of 
Congress to oppose this legislation, reinforcing sex discrimination and 
positioning the U.S. as a safe haven for those who cannot legally 
acquire a sex-selection abortion in their home countries. But this is 
not surprising considering Planned Parenthood's record.
  A recent undercover investigation by Live Action once again exposed 
Planned Parenthood's hypocrisy and anti-life ideology by showing a 
Planned Parenthood facility located in Austin, Texas knowingly 
facilitating the sex-selective abortion of a baby girl. Even going so 
far as to coach a late term abortion, in order to confirm that the baby 
was the unwanted sex. The video also shows the Planned Parenthood 
employee instructing a young woman about how to commit Medicaid fraud.
  As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, I have led an investigation into Planned 
Parenthood's use of the more than $1 million federal dollars they 
receive everyday and their compliance with sexual assault and child 
abuse reporting laws. This was the first ever such investigation in 
Planned Parenthood's history. Planned Parenthood has an extensive and 
well-documented record of improper Medicaid billing practices, 
violating state sexual assault and child abuse reporting laws, and of 
encouraging young girls to lie about their ages to circumvent state 
reporting laws.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support this life-saving 
legislation and ban sex-selective abortions and to send the clear 
message that each and every girl is valued in our society.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will again remind all Members to 
address their remarks to the Chair, not to one another, and to avoid 
references in the second person.
  Mr. CONYERS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the remainder 
of the time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 5 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 5\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I rise in support of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination 
Act, and I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership on the 
issue.
  Simply put, this bill gives baby girls the same chance at life as our 
baby boys, Mr. Speaker. I think it's hypocrisy to say that one is pro-
woman and that it's okay to end the life of an unborn child just 
because of its gender. Since when did America subscribe to the idea 
that males are worth more than females?
  We know that sex-selection abortions happen all over the world, as 
was evidenced and certainly brought to light by human rights activists 
like Mr. Chen, who fled to America this month. But according to at 
least six academic studies published in the past 4 years, this tragic 
reality is playing out in our own backyard. Just this week, an 
undercover video showed a Planned Parenthood employee encouraging a 
woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly 
carrying a girl, and she wanted to have a boy instead.
  A vote against ending sex-selection abortion is a vote in favor of 
gender bias and female gendercide. A vote against is a vote for 
organized and systematic subtraction of women in America through 
targeted abortions. It's sick, it's discriminatory, it's sexist, and 
it's blatantly antiwoman and antihuman.
  It's no surprise that a poll conducted this month by the Charlotte 
Lozier Institute showed 80 percent of women in this country support a 
law banning abortion in cases where the sole reason for seeking an 
abortion is that the developing baby is female.
  I support the legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to remind my colleagues that from the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, we have this warning:

       We oppose this bill because it does not in any way adjust 
     discrimination on the basis of sex or race. Rather, it is a 
     veiled attempt to restrict health care for women of color 
     under the guise of civil rights.

  This is the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
  This bill tramples the rights of women under the guise of 
nondiscrimination while doing absolutely nothing to provide women with 
needed resources for their babies, female and male, so they can come 
into this world healthy and so both the mother and the child can 
thrive.
  This measure before us does absolutely nothing to empower women to 
make important life choices free from any family or community pressures 
they now face either to have an abortion, or to carry the pregnancy to 
term. In fact, it fails to employ the tested solutions that will reduce 
the pressures brought to bear on women to have sons. Experience around 
the world has shown that supporting women, providing them with tools to 
become independent and to be safe from violence, rather than criminal 
prohibitions, helps them resist the pressures of son preference. 
International organizations such as the United Nations Population Fund, 
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 
the United Nations Children's Fund, United Nations Women, and the World 
Health Organization have all said that abortion restrictions are not 
the solution because they put women's health and lives at risk and 
violate their human and reproductive rights.
  Please, join us and these organizations who are familiar with the 
phenomenon of son preference and oppose H.R. 3541.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who is a 
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, where he is the chairman of 
the Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Trent 
Franks for his extraordinary leadership and courage. He is a pro-life 
champion.
  Mr. Speaker last year, an undercover videotaped sting operation by 
Live Action exposed several Planned Parenthood affiliates who are 
eager, ready,

[[Page H3188]]

and willing to facilitate secret abortions for underage sex trafficking 
victims--some as young or younger than 14.
  As the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, I 
found the on-the-record willingness of Planned Parenthood personnel to 
exploit young girls and partner with sex traffickers to be absolutely 
appalling.
  Now Live Action has released another sting operation video--part of a 
new series, ``Gendercide: Sex Selection in America''--showing Planned 
Parenthood advising an undercover female investigator how to procure a 
sex-selection abortion.
  Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood tells the investigator to wait 
until the baby is 5 months along to get an ultrasound that reveals the 
sex of the child. Then, if it's a girl, kill it.
  Yesterday, The Huffington Post reported: ``No Planned Parenthood 
clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting 
one, except in States that explicitly prohibit sex-selection 
abortions.''
  In other words, Planned Parenthood is okay with exterminating a child 
in its huge network of clinics simply because she's a girl. What a 
dangerous place for little girls. Let's not forget that Planned 
Parenthood aborts approximately 330,000 children every year. This, Mr. 
Speaker, is the real war on women.
  For most of us, Mr. Speaker, ``it's a girl'' is cause for enormous 
joy, happiness, and celebration. But in many countries, including our 
own, it can be a death sentence. Today, the three most dangerous words 
in China and India are ``it's a girl.'' We can't let that happen here.
  In her book ``Unnatural Selection,'' Mara Hvistendahl traces the 
sordid history of sex-selection abortion as a means of population 
control. She writes that by August of 1969, ``sex selection had become 
a pet scheme''--fewer girls, fewer future mothers, fewer future 
children.
  At a 1969 conference, Christopher Tietze co-presented sex-selection 
abortion as one of the 12 new strategies representing the future of 
population control. He, by the way, got the Margaret Sanger Award 4 
years later.
  Sex-selection abortion is cruel, it's discriminatory, and it's legal. 
It is violence against women. Most people in government are unaware 
that it is part of a deliberate plan of population control. Support the 
Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, sponsored by Mr. Franks.
  Last year, an undercover video-taped sting operation by Live Action 
(liveaction.org) exposed several Planned Parenthood affiliates who were 
eager, ready and willing to facilitate secret abortions for underage 
sex trafficking victims--some as young or younger than 14--to get them 
on the streets again.
  As the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, I 
found the on-the-record willingness of Planned Parenthood personnel to 
exploit young girls and partner with sex traffickers to be absolutely 
appalling.
  Now Live Action has released another sting operation video--part of a 
new series, Gendercide: Sex Selection in America--showing Planned 
Parenthood staff advising an undercover female investigator how to 
procure a sex-selection abortion.
  Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood tells the investigator to wait 
until the baby is 5 months along to get an ultrasound that will reveal 
the sex of the child.
  Then, if it's a girl, kill it.
  Yesterday, the Huffington Post reported that ``no Planned Parenthood 
clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting 
one, except in states that explicitly prohibit sex selection 
abortions.''
  In other words, Planned Parenthood is OK with exterminating a child 
in its huge network of clinics simply because she's a girl. What a 
dangerous place for little girls. Let's not forget that Planned 
Parenthood aborts approximately 330,000 children each year. This, Mr. 
Speaker, is the real war on women.
  For most of us, Mr. Speaker, ``it's a girl'' is cause for enormous 
joy, happiness and celebration. But in many countries--including our 
own--it can be a death sentence. Today, the three most dangerous words 
in China and India are: it's a girl. We can't let that happen here.
  By now most people know that the killing of baby girls by abortion or 
at birth is pervasive in China due to the One Child policy and a 
preference for sons. China and India are ``missing'' tens of millions 
of daughters.
  In her book, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the 
Consequences of a World Full of Men, Mara Hvistendahl, traces the 
sordid history of sex-selection abortion as a means of population 
control. ``By August 1969, when the National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development and the Population Council convened another 
workshop on population control, sex selection had become a pet scheme . 
. . Sex selection, moreover, had the added advantage of reducing the 
number of potential mothers . . . if a reliable sex determination 
technology could be made available to a mass market,'' there was 
``rough consensus'' that sex selection abortion ``would be an 
effective, uncontroversial and ethical way of reducing the global 
population.''
  Fewer women, fewer mothers, fewer future children.
  At the conference, one abortion zealot, Christopher Tietze co-
presented sex selection abortion as one of twelve new strategies 
representing the future of global birth control. Planned Parenthood 
honored Tietze four years later with the Margaret Sanger Award.
  (I would note parenthetically, in March of 2009, Secretary of State 
Hillary Clinton also received the Margaret Sanger Award and said in her 
acceptance speech that she was ``in awe'' of Margaret Sanger, the 
founder of Planned Parenthood. To our distinguished Secretary of State, 
I respectfully ask: Are you kidding? In ``awe'' of Margaret Sanger, who 
said in 1921, ``Eugenics . . . is the most adequate and thorough avenue 
to the solution of racial, political, and social problems.'' And who 
also said in 1922, ``The most merciful thing that a family does to one 
of its infant members is to kill it.''
  Secretary Clinton in her speech said that Margaret Sanger's ``life 
and leadership'' was ``one of the most transformational in the entire 
history of the human race.'' Mr. Speaker, transformational, yes, but 
not for the better if one happens to be a woman, poor, disenfranchised, 
weak, a person of color, vulnerable, or among the many so-called 
undesirables who Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human 
race.)
  Mr. Speaker, these cruel, anti-woman policies have had horrific 
consequences.
  Hvistendahl writes that today ``there are over 160 million females 
``missing'' from Asia's population. That's more than the entire female 
population of the United States. And gender imbalance--which is mainly 
the result of sex selective abortion--is no longer strictly an Asian 
problem. In Azerbaijan and Armenia, in Eastern Europe, and even among 
some groups in the United States, couples are making sure at least one 
of their children is a son. So many parents now select for boys that 
they have skewed the sex ratio at birth of the entire world.''
  In the Global War Against Baby Girls renowned AEI demographer 
Nicholas Eberstadt wrote in The New Atlantis last Fall; ``over the past 
three decades the world has come to witness an ominous and entirely new 
form of gender discrimination: sex-selective feticide, implemented 
through the practice of surgical abortion with the assistance of 
information gained through prenatal gender determination technology. 
All around the world, the victims of this new practice are 
overwhelmingly female--in fact, almost universally female. The practice 
has become so ruthlessly routine in many contemporary societies that it 
has impacted their very population structures, warping the balance 
between male and female births and consequently skewing the sex ratios 
for the rising generation toward a biologically unnatural excess of 
males. This still-growing international predilection for sex-selective 
abortion is by now evident in the demographic contours of dozens of 
countries around the globe--and it is sufficiently severe that it has 
come to alter the overall sex ratio at birth of the entire planet, 
resulting in millions upon millions of new ``missing baby girls'' each 
year. In terms of its sheer toll in human numbers, sex-selective 
abortion has assumed a scale tantamount to a global war against baby 
girls.''

  As far back as 1990, Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen wrote in The New 
York Review of Books that ``More than 100 Million Women are Missing.'' 
In 2003 Sen wrote that sex-selection abortion was the primary cause.
  A 2008 study by Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund of Columbia University 
documented ``male-biased sex ratios among U.S. born children of 
Chinese, Korean and Asian Indian parents in the 2000 U.S. census. The 
male bias is particularly evident for third children: If there was no 
previous son, sons outnumbered daughters by 50 percent . . . We 
interpret the found deviation in favor of sons to be evidence of sex 
selection, most likely at the prenatal stage.''
  A study published in 2011 by Sunita Pun and three other researchers 
undertook ``in-depth interviews with 65 immigrant Indian women in the 
United States who had pursued fetal sex selection on the East and West 
Coasts of the United States between September 2004 and December 2009 . 
. .'' and found ``that 40% of the women interviewed had terminated 
prior pregnancies with female fetuses and that 89% of women carrying 
female fetuses in their current pregnancy pursued an abortion.''

[[Page H3189]]

  Many European nations including the UK as well as several Asian 
countries ban sex selection abortion. Only four US states--Arizona, 
Illinois, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania--proscribe it.
  The United States is a destination country for sex selection 
abortion. According to the House Judiciary Committee Report, ``women 
cross the border from Canada (where it is illegal) to obtain sex 
selection abortions in the United States.''
  The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, authored by pro-life champion 
Congressman Trent Franks, seeks an end to this pernicious form of 
violence against women by prescribing criminal and civil penalties on 
abortionists who knowingly perform an abortion based on sex or gender 
of the child.
  If enacted, the Act will also penalize anyone who uses force or the 
threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for 
the purpose of coercing a sex selection abortion. This anti-coercion 
provision is an extremely important protection for women.
  According to the House Judiciary Committee Report; ``sex-selection 
abortions are oftentimes coerced.'' The Report notes ``women who refuse 
sex-selection abortions are sometimes physically abused. A woman may be 
denied food, water, and rest to induce abortion where it is determined 
that the woman is carrying a female unborn child. Some women described 
being hit, pushed, choked and kicked in the abdomen in a husband's 
attempt to terminate a female unborn child. Pregnancy is already a 
vulnerable time for women; the most common cause of death for pregnant 
women in the United States is homicide, often at the hands of the 
unborn child's father.''
  And the Act will hold accountable anyone who knowingly solicits or 
accepts funds for the performance of a sex selection abortion or 
transports a woman into the U.S. or across a state line for a sex 
selection abortion.
  Sex-selection abortion is cruel and discriminatory and legal. It is 
violence against women. Most people in and out of government remain 
woefully unaware of the fact that sex-selection abortion was--a 
violent, nefarious and deliberate policy imposed on the world by the 
pro-abortion population control movement--it's not an accident. The 
Congress can--and must--defend women from this vicious assault today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, if this measure is passed into 
law, we would then require that medical and mental health professionals 
violate doctor-patient confidentiality and report ``known or suspected 
violations'' of the law to law enforcement authorities. The penalty for 
failure to report would be a fine or incarceration.
  Now, it is not by accident, Members of the House, that this measure 
is opposed by these outstanding organizations: the American Congress of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Public Health Association; 
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals; American Society for 
Reproductive Medicine; Medical Students for Choice; National Abortion 
Federation; National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's 
Health; National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association; 
Physicians for Reproductive Health and Choice; and Planned Parenthood 
Federation of America.
  Now, this is something that would chill communications between 
doctors and patients because doctors might hear something that would 
put them at risk for criminal prosecution, and patients because they 
would fear that their conversations with their doctors would not remain 
private. And so what we're doing here is taking the most drastic step 
that would cause these nine organizations to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I don't have time to correct all 
of the misinformation that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
have said here today. They've talked about everything but what this 
bill does.
  If I thought that America really supported aborting little girls 
because they were little girls as a people, then I guess I would 
conclude that the light of human compassion had gone out in our society 
and it was time to board this place up and go home and be done with it. 
But, fortunately, Mr. Speaker, I know that 86 percent of the American 
people favor protecting little girls from sex-selection abortion, and 
that gives me great hope. I wish I had time to mention all of the 
groups that are in favor of this bill, but I know that this is going to 
be the first step, and we're going to be on the right side of history 
and the right side of justice, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 
babies, I certainly abhor abortion. And I certainly share my 
colleagues' revulsion at the idea that someone would take an innocent 
unborn life because they prefer to have a child of a different gender.
  However, I cannot support H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination 
Act, because this bill is unconstitutional. Congress's jurisdiction is 
limited to those areas specified in the Constitution. Nowhere in that 
document is Congress given any authority to address abortion in any 
manner. Until 1973, when the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the 
States in the Roe v. Wade decision, no one believed or argued abortion 
was a Federal issue.
  I also cannot support H.R. 3541 because it creates yet another set of 
Federal criminal laws, even though the Constitution lists only three 
Federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal 
matters are expressly left to States under the Ninth and Tenth 
Amendments, and criminal laws relating to abortion certainly should be 
legislated by States rather than Congress.
  I have long believed that abortion opponents make a mistake by 
spending their energies on a futile quest to make abortion a Federal 
crime. Instead, pro-life Americans should work to undo Roe v. Wade and 
give the power to restrict abortion back to the States and the people. 
It is particularly disappointing to see members supporting this bill 
who rightfully oppose ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause 
when it comes to the national health care law, which also abuses the 
Commerce Clause to create new Federal crimes.
  Pro-life Americans believe all unborn life is precious and should be 
protected. Therefore we should be troubled by legislation that singles 
out abortions motivated by a ``politically incorrect'' reason for 
special Federal punishment. To my conservative colleagues who support 
this bill: what is the difference in principle between a Federal law 
prohibiting ``sex selection'' abortions and Federal hate crimes laws? 
After all, hate crime laws also criminalize thoughts by imposing 
additional stronger penalties when a crime is motivated by the 
perpetrator's animus toward a particular race or gender.
  I also question whether this bill would reduce the number of 
abortions. I fear instead that every abortion provider in the Nation 
would simply place a sign in their waiting room saying ``It is a 
violation of Federal law to perform an abortion because of the fetus' 
gender. Here is a list of reasons for which abortion is permissible 
under Federal law.''
  Mr. Speaker, instead of spending time on this unconstitutionally, 
ineffective, and philosophically flawed bill, Congress should use its 
valid authority to limit the jurisdiction of activist Federal courts 
and (thereby) protect state laws restoring abortion. This is the 
constitutional approach to effectively repealing Roe v. Wade. Instead 
of focusing on gimmicks and piecemeal approaches, true conservatives 
should address the horror of abortion via the most immediate, 
practical, and effective manner possible: returning jurisdiction over 
abortion to the States.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act, H.R. 3541. This legislation is the 
latest Republican attack on women's health and would actually 
criminalize doctors who provide reproductive health care to women.
  Proponents of this bill claim the mantle of civil rights, arguing it 
will prevent abortions based on the gender of the fetus, particularly 
when female. We should not be fooled by this claim. The true goal of 
this legislation is to erode women's reproductive choices and 
Constitutional rights while further stigmatizing women who've had--or 
are seeking--an abortion.
  Restricting reproductive health services to women will not eliminate 
or even lessen gender bias. If we truly want to end gender 
discrimination, there are rational, effective ways to do so: ensuring 
our communities have the resources they need to address cultural 
preferences for male children, educating individuals about 
contraception and family planning, and providing access to quality 
health care. This bill addresses none of these worthy goals. Not 
surprisingly, the sponsors of this legislation don't support funding 
for family planning, comprehensive sex education, access to affordable 
birth control, or pay equity.
  In addition to undercutting women's rights, this bill punishes health 
care providers who perform abortions. Specifically, this legislation 
imposes criminal penalties on doctors who perform abortions if the sex 
of the fetus is found to be a factor in a woman's decision to terminate 
her pregnancy. Furthermore, abortion providers would receive a one-year 
prison term and lose Federal funding if they fail to report a 
``suspected'' gender-based abortion. In other words, Republicans want 
to criminalize health care professionals who cannot guess a

[[Page H3190]]

woman's very personal reasons to have an abortion or who refuse to 
violate the doctor-patient relationship by telling the government about 
private conversations with patients.
  Let's be clear: this bill is not about ending sex selection or 
protecting women's rights. It is about Republicans trying to take away 
a woman's right to choose. To claim this legislation is about ``civil 
rights'' is reprehensible. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing 
this bill and to work toward actual gender equality.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today, the Prenatal 
Nondiscrimination Act, purports to address gender discrimination by 
preventing abortions on the basis of sex. While one of the most 
effective ways to end gender discrimination is to empower women, H.R. 
3541 only serves to marginalize women even further. Today, minority 
women have to overcome additional hurdles to receive the quality 
healthcare they deserve and this legislation only serves to subject 
them to even further scrutiny when making healthcare decisions.
  This legislation restricts women's access to reproductive healthcare 
by threatening doctors with up to five years in prison and other 
penalties if they perform sex selection abortions. If the drafters of 
H.R. 3541 were really trying to end sex-selective abortions, wouldn't 
they also be prosecuting those who sought an abortion for these 
reasons, not only doctors? With doctors fearful of yet even more 
restrictions to their practice, many will simply refuse to treat women 
who want to obtain a safe and legal abortion. After all, abortion is 
still a constitutionally guaranteed right in this country.
  In addition, this bill includes language requiring any medical or 
mental health professional to report known or suspected sex-selective 
abortions. However, in virtually all circumstances, it would be 
impossible for reproductive healthcare providers to determine whether a 
woman seeks a sex-selective abortion, thus amounting to a ``witch 
hunt''.
  I am lucky enough to be surrounded by women in my family. I have a 
wife, a sister, a daughter, and a granddaughter. I am deeply troubled 
by gender discrimination. I support legislation to address the real 
issues in low-income communities of color, and to promote women's 
rights, including: S. 1925, the reauthorization of the Violence Against 
Women Act; H.R. 1519, the Paycheck Fairness Act; and H.J. Res. 69, 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution on the equal rights for men 
and women. Since the Majority is so concerned with gender 
discrimination, I look forward to the day when the Republican 
leadership decides to bring these bills on the floor for a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I am completely opposed to sex-selective abortions but 
H.R. 3541 will not prevent these and, in fact, will do far more harm 
than good.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support H.R. 3541, the 
Republican bill that rolls back critical protections for a women's 
right to choose under the guise of preventing prenatal discrimination. 
While the bill's title includes the names of anti-discrimination 
activists Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglas, its anti-
discrimination premise is disingenuous--the bill actually reverses the 
rights that these leaders fought so hard for centuries ago. Rather than 
protecting women, this bill is just another thinly-veiled attack on 
women's rights.
  H.R. 3541 is legislation for a fictional problem. Statistics 
demonstrate that sex selection does not happen with regularity in our 
nation. Specifically, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 
91.4% of abortions in 2008 occurred prior to the 13th week of 
pregnancy, whereas gender identification by the most-common method of 
ultrasound is not available until between weeks 16 to 20. Further, 
gender ratios within the U.S. reflect a gender balance consistent with 
what one would expect it to be. The CIA's World Factbook indicates that 
the gender ratio at birth 1.05 males to females, which the Guttmacher 
Institute indicates is ``squarely within biologically normal 
parameters.'' The United States simply does not have a gender imbalance 
that would indicate that sex-selection occurs with any regularity. So, 
if gender selection is not a problem in the United States, one must 
wonder why the Republican leadership purports it to be one. The answer 
is that the bill before us simply is a deceptive effort to limit 
women's choice.
  Gender inequity should concern all of us. That we still live in a 
society that provides preferential treatment to men is deeply 
disturbing, and Congress should feel compelled to act to correct these 
inequities. Unfortunately, rather than promoting equal pay for women, 
advancing protections for all women from domestic violence, increasing 
access to affordable health care for all women, or addressing racial 
disparities in health care among women, the Republican leadership 
offers H.R. 3541 that would undermine the constitutional rights of 
women under a false cry of gender discrimination. This bill would 
encourage racial profiling, create additional barriers for women to 
access comprehensive health care, allow the government to interfere 
with confidential communications between doctors and their patients, 
and threaten physicians with criminal penalties for open, honest 
communication with their patients.
  So, I stand with dozens of diverse organizations--including the 
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Society 
for Reproductive Medicine, NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union, 
the American Public Health Association, Presbyterian Voices for 
Justice, and the National Women's Law Center--to strongly oppose House 
Republican bill H.R. 3541. As twenty-first-century policymakers, we 
should advance the rights of women and minorities, not weaken them. I 
vehemently oppose this dangerous and discriminatory bill that would 
limit women's health care options.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman 
Franks for introducing the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, also called 
PRENDA. This legislation prohibits abortions based on the sex of the 
unborn child.
  The bill also prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of funds for 
such purposes and prohibits the federal funding of abortions based on 
sex.
  As the New York Times has reported, ``There is evidence that some 
Americans want to choose their babies' sex'' through abortions.
  U.S. Census numbers and national vital statistics show that certain 
communities achieve unnatural sex ratios at birth that are 
statistically impossible without medically assisted sex-selection, with 
the cheapest option being abortion.
  These sex-selection abortions discriminate strongly against females 
and are overwhelmingly opposed by the American people. According to a 
recent Charlotte Lozier Institute poll, 77% of those surveyed support a 
law that bans abortion in cases where ``the fact that the developing 
baby is a girl is the sole reason for seeking an abortion.''
  Regardless of one's views on abortion generally, everyone should be 
able to agree that no abortions should occur based on the sex of the 
unborn child.
  It is time to end the practice of using sex as an excuse for 
abortion. I thank Chairman Franks again for his leadership on this 
issue.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3541, 
the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011. I stand with the more than 
200 leading organizations that oppose this bill as an unwanted and 
punitive burden on American women. I stand with those who are focused 
on women's empowerment and the protection of their civil liberties.
  This bill is a misguided proposal that would put additional barriers 
between women and their healthcare providers rather than seriously 
tackling gender discrimination. It is an unworkable bill designed with 
a purely political agenda that will have a damaging effect on women's 
health and autonomy.
  This legislation imposes criminal penalties on healthcare providers 
who perform certain abortions and requires them to report suspicions of 
sex-selective abortion. The bill lacks clear definitions and is so 
dangerously vague that it will force all healthcare providers to stop 
offering these services due to fear of jail time and civil damages 
claims. For instance, prosecutors could use shaky circumstantial 
evidence to suggest gender bias, including routine ultrasounds or 
profiling based on race or culture.
  There rarely exists evidence strong enough to conclude that an 
abortion is motivated by the sex or any other singular factor. The 
World Health Organization has analyzed similar laws around the world 
that criminalize sex-selective abortions but has found that it is 
nearly impossible to prosecute such cases. The United Nations has 
argued that the most effective way to fight a pervasive preference for 
sons is to instead dedicate ourselves to ending economic and social 
inequalities. By passing H.R. 3541, we would stand at odds with the 
international community.
  As a representative of the 37th District of California, I am 
particularly concerned that this bill will unfairly subject Asian 
American women to additional scrutiny and racial profiling. It is 
unclear to what extent sex-selection abortions exist in the United 
States; however, the law specifically targets women of Asian descent 
and places them under a cloud of suspicion. Minority communities 
already face difficulties in accessing healthcare, and this bill will 
cause further marginalization.
  We should be uniting around healthcare reform, not legislation that 
erodes trust on both sides of the patient-doctor relationship. Honest 
dialogue between women and medical professionals is critical in 
ensuring safe and appropriate care, and I cannot vote for any bill that 
does not protect open communication. Medical practices are already 
governed by strict codes of conduct and regulations. This bill simply 
adds unnecessary government interference. It puts physicians at risk 
for criminal penalties while doing absolutely nothing to address root 
causes of gender biases and inequalities.
  There are many proven investments that support women and girls and 
help them to

[[Page H3191]]

lead safe and healthy lives. Those include policies that promote equal 
pay and employment, access to healthcare, and protection from gender-
based violence. Nevertheless, in the 112th Congress, House Republicans 
have voted in favor of reducing protections against gender-based 
violence and limiting access to reproductive healthcare and birth 
control.
  H.R. 3541 continues this pattern of perpetuating gender inequalities 
by allowing the state to scrutinize the private decisions made by women 
and their doctors, notwithstanding the recent lip service being paid to 
gender discrimination. Additionally, this legislation will have no 
effect on the rates of abortions and unwanted pregnancies as long as 
the House Republican majority continues its unbroken and disturbing 
record of cutting public funding for sex education, family planning, 
and maternal health services.
  Mr. Speaker, the sponsors of H.R. 3541 are continuing to attack the 
rights of women, albeit now under the disguise of gender equality. I 
urge my colleagues to see the hypocrisy of this bill and to join me in 
voting against this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3541, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________