[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.
____________________