[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 80 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H3272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       DON'T BE FOOLED BY PRENDA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Quigley) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
falsely named Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, or PRENDA. This might be 
one of the most disingenuous bills to ever come to the floor of the 
House. The authors of this bill are talking out of both sides of their 
mouth. Today, I want to set the record straight.
  In one breath, the proponents of this bill say they are protecting 
female fetuses by preventing abortions based on sex and that we must 
pass this bill to protect women everywhere and show that girls are as 
valid as boys. Yet, just last week, these same Members obstructed the 
passage of an expanded Violence Against Women Act that would have 
protected all victims of violence.
  The same Members who today espouse equality for women voted against 
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which will help combat the 
discrimination against women that keeps them earning 77 cents for every 
dollar that men earn.
  The same Members who today talk about protecting female babies 
continue to vote to gut the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which 
will be used to provide lifesaving breast and cervical cancer 
screenings to millions of the very women PRENDA's proponents claim to 
care so much about.
  Here's the truth: this is not about women's equality. PRENDA is 
simply another attempt by choice opponents to obstruct women's access 
to reproductive health care.
  I agree with the bill's proponents that abortions based on sex are a 
problem around the world, and I agree that we must take action to stop 
these abusive practices both at home and around the world. But let me 
be clear that this bill will not prevent sex-selective abortions.
  Here's why:
  First, criminalizing such practices simply will not work. Banning 
sex-selective abortions has already been tried in various countries 
around the world, and what expert agencies such as the World Health 
Organization--which operate in these countries--have found is that 
these bans don't prevent abortions. Rather, they simply result ``in a 
greater demand for clandestine procedures which fall outside 
regulations, protocols, and monitoring and basic safety.'' These 
restrictions serve only to drive these procedures underground, making 
them less safe. Our own history proves this point;
  Second, criminalization of sex-selective abortions would force 
physicians to question women about their reasons for seeking abortion. 
It would likely compel physicians to target certain groups of women 
from cultures where sex-selection abortion is more prevalent. To avoid 
liability, physicians may even cease providing such care to entire 
groups of women simply because of their race. This bill would promote 
racial profiling and discrimination;
  Additionally, targeting such motivations in practice would be nearly 
impossible. According, to an analysis by the World Health Organization 
and four other U.N. agencies, ``prosecuting offenders is practically 
impossible.'' And, further, ``proving that a particular abortion was 
sex selective is equally difficult.''
  These expert international organizations do offer a viable solution 
to address this issue, a solution unmentioned in H.R. 3541. Address the 
root causes which drive individuals to prefer sons over daughters. The 
United Nations, through its work in nations where sex selection is 
prevalent, has stated that the most effective way to address this son 
preference is by fighting the root economic, social, and cultural 
causes of sex inequality.
  South Korea successfully lowered its male-to-female ratio from 116 
boys for every 100 girls in the nineties to 107 boys per 100 girls in 
2007. They did this by passing laws to improve the legal status of 
women and by implementing a public education campaign emphasizing the 
importance of women.
  If we're going to consider this bill, let's be honest about it. Its 
supporters are not promoting women's equality, and they are not serious 
about preventing sex-selective abortions. If they were, they would be 
promoting programs to empower women and girls to combat son preference. 
Instead, they are criminalizing physicians, profiling cultural groups, 
and driving abortion services underground. The truth is that this bill 
is another attempt to restrict women's reproductive health care wrapped 
in the rhetoric of women's rights.
  Don't be fooled by PRENDA. Vote ``no.''

                          ____________________