[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5440-H5448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 3803) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia, and
for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3803
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 ``District of Columbia Pain-
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.
Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout the
unborn child's entire body and nerves link these receptors to
the brain's thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than
20 weeks after fertilization.
(2) By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts
to touch. After 20 weeks, the unborn child reacts to stimuli
that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult
human, for example, by recoiling.
(3) In the unborn child, application of such painful
stimuli is associated with significant increases in stress
hormones known as the stress response.
(4) Subjection to such painful stimuli is associated with
long-term harmful neurodevelopmental effects, such as altered
pain sensitivity and, possibly, emotional, behavioral, and
learning disabilities later in life.
(5) For the purposes of surgery on unborn children, fetal
anesthesia is routinely administered and is associated with a
decrease in stress hormones compared to their level when
painful stimuli are applied without such anesthesia.
(6) The position, asserted by some medical experts, that
the unborn child is incapable of experiencing pain until a
point later in pregnancy than 20 weeks after fertilization
predominately rests on the assumption that the ability to
experience pain depends on the cerebral cortex and requires
nerve connections between the thalamus and the cortex.
However, recent medical research and analysis, especially
since 2007, provides strong evidence for the conclusion that
a functioning cortex is not necessary to experience pain.
(7) Substantial evidence indicates that children born
missing the bulk of the cerebral cortex, those with
hydranencephaly, nevertheless experience pain.
(8) In adult humans and in animals, stimulation or ablation
of the cerebral cortex does not alter pain perception, while
stimulation or ablation of the thalamus does.
(9) Substantial evidence indicates that structures used for
pain processing in early development differ from those of
adults, using different neural elements available at specific
times during development, such as the subcortical plate, to
fulfill the role of pain processing.
(10) The position, asserted by some commentators, that the
unborn child remains in a coma-like sleep state that
precludes the unborn child experiencing pain is inconsistent
with the documented reaction of unborn children to painful
stimuli and with the experience of fetal surgeons who have
found it necessary to sedate the unborn child with anesthesia
to prevent the unborn child from engaging in vigorous
movement in reaction to invasive surgery.
(11) Consequently, there is substantial medical evidence
that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least
by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier.
(12) It is the purpose of the Congress to assert a
compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of
unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical
evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain.
(13) The compelling governmental interest in protecting the
lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial
medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling
pain is intended to be separate from and independent of the
compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of
unborn children from the stage of viability, and neither
governmental interest is intended to replace the other.
(14) The District Council of the District of Columbia,
operating under authority delegated by Congress, repealed the
entire District law limiting abortions, effective April 29,
2004, so that in the District of Columbia, abortion is now
legal, for any reason, until the moment of birth.
(15) Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States of America provides that the Congress shall ``exercise
exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever'' over the
District established as the seat of government of the United
States, now known as the District of Columbia. The
constitutional responsibility for the protection of pain-
capable unborn children within the Federal District resides
with the Congress.
SEC. 3. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD
PROTECTION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 74 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 the
following:
``Sec. 1532. District of Columbia pain-capable unborn child
protection
``(a) Unlawful Conduct.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, including any legislation of the District
of Columbia under authority delegated by Congress, it shall
be unlawful for any person to perform an abortion within the
District of Columbia, or attempt to do so, unless in
conformity with the requirements set forth in subsection (b).
``(b) Requirements for Abortions.--
``(1) The physician performing or attempting the abortion
shall first make a determination of the probable post-
fertilization age of the unborn child or reasonably rely upon
such a determination made by another physician. In making
such a determination, the physician shall make such inquiries
of the pregnant woman and perform or cause to be performed
such medical examinations and tests as a reasonably prudent
physician, knowledgeable about the case and the medical
conditions involved, would consider necessary to make an
accurate determination of post-fertilization age.
``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
abortion shall not be performed or attempted, if the probable
post-fertilization age, as
[[Page H5441]]
determined under paragraph (1), of the unborn child is 20
weeks or greater.
``(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), subparagraph (A) does
not apply if, in reasonable medical judgment, the abortion is
necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is
endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or
physical injury, including a life-endangering physical
condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but
not including psychological or emotional conditions.
``(C) Notwithstanding the definitions of `abortion' and
`attempt an abortion' in this section, a physician
terminating or attempting to terminate a pregnancy under the
exception provided by subparagraph (B) may do so only in the
manner which, in reasonable medical judgment, provides the
best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in
reasonable medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in
that manner would pose a greater risk of--
``(i) the death of the pregnant woman; or
``(ii) the substantial and irreversible physical impairment
of a major bodily function, not including psychological or
emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman;
than would other available methods.
``(c) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever violates subsection (a)
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more
than 2 years, or both.
``(d) Bar to Prosecution.--A woman upon whom an abortion in
violation of subsection (a) is performed or attempted may not
be prosecuted under, or for a conspiracy to violate,
subsection (a), or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4
based on such a violation.
``(e) Civil Remedies.--
``(1) Civil action by woman on whom the abortion is
performed.--A woman upon whom an abortion has been performed
or attempted in violation of subsection (a), may in a civil
action against any person who engaged in the violation 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, occasioned by the
violation of this section;
``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of
the abortion; and
``(C) 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, parent, sibling or
guardian of, or a current or former licensed health care
provider of, that woman; or
``(iii) the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia.
``(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.
``(6) Attorneys fees for defendant.--If a defendant in a
civil action under this section prevails and the court finds
that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous and brought in bad
faith, the court shall also render judgment for a reasonable
attorney's fee in favor of the defendant against the
plaintiff.
``(7) Awards against woman.--Except under paragraph (6), in
a civil action under this subsection, no damages, attorney's
fee or other monetary relief may be assessed against the
woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted.
``(f) 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 paragraphs (1), (2), or (4) of
subsection (e) 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.
``(g) Reporting.--
``(1) Duty to report.--Any physician who performs or
attempts an abortion within the District of Columbia shall
report that abortion to the relevant District of Columbia
health agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as the
`health agency') on a schedule and in accordance with forms
and regulations prescribed by the health agency.
``(2) Contents of report.--The report shall include the
following:
``(A) Post-fertilization age.--For the determination of
probable postfertilization age of the unborn child, whether
ultrasound was employed in making the determination, and the
week of probable post-fertilization age that was determined.
``(B) Method of abortion.--Which of the following methods
or combination of methods was employed:
``(i) Dilation, dismemberment, and evacuation of fetal
parts also known as `dilation and evacuation'.
``(ii) Intra-amniotic instillation of saline, urea, or
other substance (specify substance) to kill the unborn child,
followed by induction of labor.
``(iii) Intracardiac or other intra-fetal injection of
digoxin, potassium chloride, or other substance (specify
substance) intended to kill the unborn child, followed by
induction of labor.
``(iv) Partial-birth abortion, as defined in section 1531.
``(v) Manual vacuum aspiration without other methods.
``(vi) Electrical vacuum aspiration without other methods.
``(vii) Abortion induced by use of mifepristone in
combination with misoprostol.
``(viii) If none of the methods described in the other
clauses of this subparagraph was employed, whatever method
was employed.
``(C) Age of woman.--The age or approximate age of the
pregnant woman.
``(D) Compliance with requirements for exception.--The
facts relied upon and the basis for any determinations
required to establish compliance with the requirements for
the exception provided by subsection (b)(2).
``(3) Exclusions from reports.--
``(A) A report required under this subsection shall not
contain the name or the address of the woman whose pregnancy
was terminated, nor shall the report contain any other
information identifying the woman.
``(B) Such report shall contain a unique Medical Record
Number, to enable matching the report to the woman's medical
records.
``(C) Such reports shall be maintained in strict confidence
by the health agency, shall not be available for public
inspection, and shall not be made available except--
``(i) to the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia or that Attorney's delegate for a criminal
investigation or a civil investigation of conduct that may
violate this section; or
``(ii) pursuant to court order in an action under
subsection (e).
``(4) Public report.--Not later than June 30 of each year
beginning after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the
health agency shall issue a public report providing
statistics for the previous calendar year compiled from all
of the reports made to the health agency under this
subsection for that year for each of the items listed in
paragraph (2). The report shall also provide the statistics
for all previous calendar years during which this section was
in effect, adjusted to reflect any additional information
from late or corrected reports. The health agency shall take
care to ensure that none of the information included in the
public reports could reasonably lead to the identification of
any pregnant woman upon whom an abortion was performed or
attempted.
``(5) Failure to submit report.--
``(A) Late fee.--Any physician who fails to submit a report
not later than 30 days after the date that report is due
shall be subject to a late fee of $1,000 for each additional
30-day period or portion of a 30-day period the report is
overdue.
``(B) Court order to comply.--A court of competent
jurisdiction may, in a civil action commenced by the health
agency, direct any physician whose report under this
subsection is still not filed as required, or is incomplete,
more than 180 days after the date the report was due, to
comply with the requirements of this section under penalty of
civil contempt.
``(C) Disciplinary action.--Intentional or reckless failure
by any physician to comply with any requirement of this
subsection, other than late filing of a report, constitutes
sufficient cause for any disciplinary sanction which the
Health Professional Licensing Administration of the District
of Columbia determines is appropriate, including suspension
or revocation of any license granted by the Administration.
``(6) Forms and regulations.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this section, the health agency
shall prescribe forms and regulations to assist in compliance
with this subsection.
``(7) Effective date of requirement.--Paragraph (1) of this
subsection takes effect with respect to all abortions
performed on and after the first day of the first calendar
month beginning after the effective date of such forms and
regulations.
``(h) Definitions.--In this section the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Abortion.--The term `abortion' means the use or
prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other
substance or device--
``(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman
known to be pregnant; or
``(B) to otherwise intentionally terminate the pregnancy of
a woman known to be pregnant with an intention other than to
increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the
life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a
dead unborn child who died as the result of natural causes in
utero, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the
pregnant woman or her
[[Page H5442]]
unborn child, and which causes the premature termination of
the pregnancy.
``(2) Attempt an abortion.--The term `attempt', with
respect to an abortion, means conduct that, under the
circumstances as the actor believes them to be, constitutes a
substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate
in performing an abortion in the District of Columbia.
``(3) Fertilization.--The term `fertilization' means the
fusion of human spermatozoon with a human ovum.
``(4) Health agency.--The term `health agency' means the
Department of Health of the District of Columbia or any
successor agency responsible for the regulation of medical
practice.
``(5) Perform.--The term `perform', with respect to an
abortion, includes induce an abortion through a medical or
chemical intervention including writing a prescription for a
drug or device intended to result in an abortion.
``(6) Physician.--The term `physician' means a person
licensed to practice medicine and surgery or osteopathic
medicine and surgery, or otherwise licensed to legally
perform an abortion.
``(7) Post-fertilization age.--The term `post-fertilization
age' means the age of the unborn child as calculated from the
fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum.
``(8) Probable post-fertilization age of the unborn
child.--The term `probable post-fertilization age of the
unborn child' means what, in reasonable medical judgment,
will with reasonable probability be the postfertilization age
of the unborn child at the time the abortion is planned to be
performed or induced.
``(9) Reasonable medical judgment.--The term `reasonable
medical judgment' means a medical judgment that would be made
by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the
case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the
medical conditions involved.
``(10) Unborn child.--The term `unborn child' means an
individual organism of the species homo sapiens, beginning at
fertilization, until the point of being born alive as defined
in section 8(b) of title 1.
``(11) Unemancipated minor.--The term `unemancipated minor'
means a minor who is subject to the control, authority, and
supervision of a parent or guardian, as determined under the
law of the State in which the minor resides.
``(12) Woman.--The term `woman' means a female human being
whether or not she has reached the age of majority.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``1532. District of Columbia pain-capable unborn child protection.''.
(c) Chapter Heading Amendments.--
(1) Chapter heading in chapter.--The chapter heading for
chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS'' and inserting
``ABORTIONS''.
(2) Table of chapters for part i.--The item relating to
chapter 74 in the table of chapters at the beginning of part
I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking
``Partial-Birth Abortions'' and inserting ``Abortions''.
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 in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3803, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gruesome late-term abortions of unborn children who
can feel pain is the greatest human rights atrocity in the United
States today. H.R. 3803, the bipartisan District of Columbia Pain-
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, has more than 220 cosponsors in
the House of Representatives. It protects unborn children who have
reached 20 weeks' development, their being subjected to inhumane
torturous late-term abortions on the basis that the unborn child feels
pain by at least this stage of development, if not much earlier. Just 2
days ago, a Federal court upheld Arizona's version of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, throughout America's history, the hearts of the American
people have always been moved with compassion when they discover a
theretofore hidden class of victims once the humanity of the victim and
the inhumanity of what was being done to them finally became clear in
their minds. Mr. Speaker, America is on the cusp of another such
realization.
Medical science regarding the development of unborn babies and their
capacities at various stages of growth has advanced dramatically, and
incontrovertibly it demonstrates that unborn children clearly do
experience pain. The single greatest hurdle to legislation like H.R.
3803 has always been that deponents deny unborn babies feel pain at
all, as if somehow the ability to feel pain magically develops
instantaneously as a child passes through the birth canal. This level
of deliberate ignorance might have found excuse in earlier eras of
human history, but the evidence today is extensive and irrefutable.
Unborn children have the capacity to experience pain by at least 20
weeks and very likely substantially earlier.
We have entered into the committee hearing record a 29-page summary
of the dozens of studies worldwide confirming that unborn children feel
pain by at least 20 weeks post-fertilization. This information is
available at www.DoctorsonFetalPain.org. And I would sincerely
recommend that all committee members, their staff, and the members of
the press review this site to get the most current evidence on unborn
pain rather than to have their understanding cemented in some earlier
time when scientists still believed in spontaneous generation and that
the Earth was flat.
{time} 1750
Mr. Speaker, late-term abortions are gruesome and painful. Babies are
dismembered, or they're chemically burned alive by a hypertonic salt
solution. Some late-term abortionists stab the small pain-capable baby
through the chest to inject drugs that will kill the child prior to
being removed.
Most Americans think that late-term abortions are rare, but in fact
there are approximately 120,000 late-term abortions annually, or more
than 325 late-term abortions every day in America.
Here in the District of Columbia, the designated seat of freedom in
America, abortion is completely legal for any reason up until the
moment of birth. Under the Constitution, the Congress and the President
are the ones clearly responsible for this unthinkable abortion-until-
birth policy.
This landmark vote we are about to take would be the first time in
history that the United States House of Representatives has ever voted
on this question of whether to endorse legal abortion for any reason up
until birth, and, ladies and gentlemen, we will be held accountable.
Mr. Speaker, under the Humane Slaughter Act, farm animals in America
have protection from completely unnecessary cruelty, yet unborn
children in America have no such protection from the same kind of
agonizing pain. In fact, there is no legal standard to provide that
late-term unborn babies--clearly known to be capable of feeling pain--
are afforded even the most basic human decency of receiving anesthesia
before they are torturously killed.
Mr. Speaker, if we cannot find the will or the courage to protect
human babies from being tortured, then what claim on human compassion
remains to us?
What we are doing to babies is real, Mr. Speaker. It is barbaric in
the purest sense of the word. It is the greatest human rights violation
occurring on U.S. soil, and it has already victimized potentially
millions of pain-capable babies since the Supreme Court gave us all
abortion on demand that tragic day in 1973.
Mr. Speaker, I would plead with my colleagues to vote for this bill
to at least begin to end this heartbreak of painful late-term abortion
in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I will begin this discussion by asking the gentleman from Arizona,
Mr. Trent Franks, this question: Why is this measure limited only to
women in the District of Columbia? And I yield to him for a response if
he chooses to make one.
Then I will now go on with my statement.
The majority of this House, conservatives, can think of nothing
better to do than to continue to wage a war against women and take up
our time with these divisive issues. Here, we face the worst of
economic crisis since the 1930s. So this is another attempt,
[[Page H5443]]
yet another attempt, to undermine women's basic reproductive rights
with appeals to ideology rather than to sound science.
Every pregnancy is unique and different, and, unfortunately, some
women face difficult and emotionally devastating decisions in the
course of their pregnancy that would require them to consider abortion
as a health option. So we gather here this afternoon to recognize that
this legislation is not needed, is opposed by the Nation's leading
civil rights organizations, including: the Physicians for Reproductive
Choice and Health, the Center for Reproductive Rights, NARAL Pro-Choice
America, the National Abortion Federation, the American Civil Liberties
Union, and Catholics for Choice.
With that opening, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), chair of the Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, first in response to the good gentleman
from the other side, article I, section 8, clause 17, called the
District Clause, gives us authority for this bill.
But I really want to point out why this bill is so important. One of
the things that upsets a great deal of Americans--in fact, over 60
percent of all Americans, 70 percent of women--is when a baby
experiences pain. And when you ask Americans about abortions and a baby
feeling pain with an abortion, well over 60 percent say they do not
want that abortion.
The kind of abortions that are occurring are occurring up until the
point of where a child can actually come out normally, after 9 months'
gestation. And it's called a D&E, or a dilation and extraction. It is a
painful procedure that requires dismemberment of the unborn child and
the crushing of its head.
We know that as early as 20 weeks--maybe even as early as 8 weeks--an
unborn child feels pain. We know it is at 20 weeks. Now, there is a
question of 8 weeks. And yet at 9 months, this very normal child inside
of a body is feeling pain. This is why we are going to ask Congress to
stop this horrific act.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentlelady that we have
jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, but we do not have the
prerogative to produce unconstitutional programs for them like H.R.
3803.
I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New
York, Jerrold Nadler, the former chairman of the Constitution Committee
of the Judiciary.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the D.C. Abortion Ban Act.
This legislation is a flagrantly unconstitutional attack on the right
of women to make the most fundamental decisions about their lives and
their health. It is based on radical ideology rather than on long-
established Supreme Court precedent or on sound science, and it is yet
another attack on the right to self-government of the Americans who
live, work, and pay taxes in our Nation's Capital. It is, in short, yet
another example of the Republican war on women and of their fundamental
hostility to democracy when the voters have the audacity to disagree
with Republican orthodox.
And why are we here today, playing abortion politics with a bill
everyone knows will not pass the Senate, when millions of Americans are
out of a job and the Republican majority can't find a moment to
consider a single one of the President's jobs bills?
The constitutional rule is clear: The government may not tell a woman
whether or not she may have an abortion before fetal viability. This
bill prohibits abortions much earlier. This bill does not even have an
exception to protect women's health, another constitutional violation.
We don't have to guess how this kind of extreme legislation plays
out. We know from States which have enacted similar laws. Take the case
of Danielle Deaver, a Nebraska woman who was 22 weeks pregnant when her
water broke. Doctors informed her that her fetus would likely be born
with undeveloped lungs and not be able to survive outside the womb
because all the amniotic fluid had drained, the tiny growing fetus
slowly would be crushed by the uterus walls.
During her pregnancy, Nebraska enacted a law similar to this bill. As
a result, Ms. Deaver could not obtain an abortion. Thus, despite
serious complications and enduring infections, Danielle had to continue
her pregnancy. On December 8, 2010, Danielle delivered a 1 pound, 10
ounce child who survived only 15 minutes outside the womb.
The question of fetal pain is a difficult one, but Members need to
understand that the argument being made by the proponents of this bill,
that a 20-week fetus can feel pain, is a fringe one denied by the bulk
of the scientific community. Scientists will continue to debate and
study, but we should not write marginal views into the criminal code.
We also need to remember that this bill targets only the District of
Columbia, which some on the other side of the aisle like to treat like
a colony. It is outrageous that we would be considering a bill that
Members are clearly not willing to apply to their own constituents.
Mr. Speaker, it is time that the Republican leadership stop diverting
the attention of this House from the business of putting people back to
work by bringing up one divisive, unconstitutional bill after another.
I urge my colleagues to reject this cynical, dangerous, misogynist,
and unconstitutional legislation.
{time} 1800
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris), a member of the Science Committee
and an obstetric anesthesiologist.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time
to me.
I will tell you the argument that this is unconstitutional just isn't
true. I urge the Members on the other side of the aisle who oppose the
measure to read Judge Teilborg's opinion, just having been released,
where he goes very carefully and says this doesn't prohibit abortions
after 20 weeks, it limits them, clearly within the purview of Roe v.
Wade and the subsequent case law, where the Gonzalez case says, for
instance:
Government uses its voice and regulatory authority to show
its profound respect for the life within the woman.
Now, the Flat Earth Society on the other side would have you believe
that no medical advances have been made in pain and the perception of
pain since Roe v. Wade has been issued. But, in fact, they have. About
15 years ago, a huge discussion about whether preterm infants at 23 to
25, 26 weeks, being cared for by the thousands in our neonatal
intensive care units, perceive pain to the point where pain medicine
would be required to be administered to those patients. Pain medicine,
that if it weren't required would be dangerous, but the decision--this
has been decided. These infants are being treated for pain.
The opposition would hold up a report in the Journal of the American
Medical Association from 2005, written by pro-abortion proponents,
which suggested that until 30 weeks, there was no perception of pain.
Mr. Speaker, that's been settled in hospitals around the country where
23- to 25-week fetuses are being treated. This bill sets that 20-week
limit for two reasons. One is, as the judge says in his findings,
everyone concedes that pain receptors are present at 20 weeks
throughout the fetus. Mr. Speaker, God didn't put those there if they
weren't there for a reason, and it is to perceive pain. Secondly, the
risk to the mother increases exponentially as you get out of the first
week of gestation, the risk of abortion to the mother. That's clear.
That's demonstrated. That's epidemiology. That's not ideology; that's
science. That's science clearly understood.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is founded on very basic scientific principles
that the fetus has pain receptors throughout their body at 20 weeks and
that the risk to the mother increases after 20 weeks.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I remind the previous speaker that
women's doctors know a lot more about this subject matter than Members
of Congress.
And now with great pleasure I yield 1 minute to the Honorable Ted
Deutch from Florida, a member of the House Judiciary Committee.
[[Page H5444]]
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, even for a Republican House with a record of
attacking women's rights, bringing up this bill under suspension that
disregards the United States Constitution, is beyond brazen. It is time
that my colleagues come clean with the American people and admit these
arbitrary limitations on a woman's constitutional right to choose are
part of a broader effort. Tonight, it's the District of Columbia.
Tonight, 20 weeks is the threshold for turning a constitutional right
into a crime. What is tomorrow--10 weeks, 10 days? Where does it end?
Mr. Speaker, when they talk about competing rights, they are intent
on granting, even to a newly fertilized egg, the constitutional rights
of American women. They want to put the rights of a zygote ahead of the
rights of a woman exercising autonomy over her own body.
My colleagues say this bill is limited in scope; but their
intentions, Mr. Speaker, are not limited in scope. Right now in this
Congress and across the country, the rights of women are under attack.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, right now in this Congress and across the
country, the rights of American women are under attack. It is sad that
we must fight to defend these rights. But fight, Mr. Speaker, we will.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 12\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Michigan has 12\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlelady from Florida (Mrs. Adams), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mrs. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3803,
authored by my friend, Representative Trent Franks, which prohibits
abortions in the District of Columbia on pain-capable unborn children.
Recently, a poll conducted revealed that 63 percent of respondents
favored banning abortion after the point where the unborn child can
feel pain.
Because abortions may be performed in the Nation's Capital for any
reason during all 9 months of pregnancy, the need for this bill is very
clear. Mr. Speaker, when we debated this bill in the Judiciary
Committee a few weeks ago, I was shocked that some of my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle referred to this child as a fetus. I'm sure
my female colleagues who have been blessed to experience the joy of
motherhood will agree with me when I say during the time I was carrying
my daughter, I always thought of her as my baby, never a fetus, and I
am very concerned that the discussion is being centered around
everything but the most important thing, and that is what the baby
feels and is capable of feeling at this time.
We all have the opportunity to do the right thing. So let's stop
playing word games and pass this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a senior Member of the
Congress.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership
on this issue and so many others.
I rise in opposition to the D.C. abortion act and thank my colleague
from New York, Jerry Nadler, and Eleanor Holmes Norton for their very
strong leadership in opposition to this bill.
The callous indifference that is shown to the lives, the health, the
well-being, and constitutional rights of women in this bill simply
beggar description. For instance, the bill has no provision whatsoever
for women who have been the victims of rape or incest, and there is no
exception for a woman's health.
This bill would use the awesome power of the State to compel the
victim of a violent assault to bear the child of her attacker, and it
would compel a minor child who has been the victim of incest to bear
her sibling.
How can you even begin to justify the intrusion of Federal power into
such deeply painful and personal matters. This bill is an assault on
decency and common sense. And it adds to the battery of weapons being
used by our Republican colleagues in their war against women.
A vote for this bill is a vote to show contempt for women's health,
women's rights, a doctor's role in health care decisions, and the
Constitution all in one fell swoop. Vote ``no'' and stay out of the
doctor's office and the private lives of American women. The health and
safety of women in D.C. is too important, and this is a recurring bad
dream. This happens to be the ninth anti-choice vote brought to the
floor during this Congress. It is another example of the Republicans'
war against women. I urge a strong ``no'' vote.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised and reminded not to
traffic the well when another Member is under recognition.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3803, the D.C.
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
I fear for the conscience of our Nation because the termination of
unborn children, for any reason, is tolerated in some parts of our
country throughout pregnancy--even though scientific conclusions show
infants feel pain by at least 20 weeks gestation.
That literally means a baby at the halfway point of a pregnancy will
experience pain during the violence of a dismemberment abortion, the
most common second-trimester abortion, wherein a steel tool severs
limbs from the infant and its skull is crushed.
{time} 1810
Mr. Speaker, such procedures are horrific, and in terms of pain, like
torture to their infant subjects. As a country, we should leave this
practice behind. That is why I'm a cosponsor of this legislation to
prohibit elective abortions in D.C. past 20 weeks.
I urge my colleagues to stand with me for the most vulnerable among
us and vote in favor of H.R. 3803.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the
former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Barbara Lee of Oakland,
California.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for
yielding and for your tremendous leadership on this and so many issues
so important to the health of women and to the health of our country.
I'd like to also take a moment to commend Congresswoman Norton, the
duly elected representative for the residents of the District of
Columbia, for her relentless advocacy on behalf of her constituents and
her leadership in fighting back the onslaught of attacks against the
women of the District of Columbia.
Tea Party Republicans continue to make D.C. their launching ground
for attacks against women's health as part of the ongoing war on women.
H.R. 3803, the so-called--and this is very sinister--District of
Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is nothing more than
a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and a vehicle for yet another
ideological attack against women's reproductive rights. It's a direct
threat to the health of every woman living in the District of Columbia.
It contains no exceptions for health, for rape or incest, and it
demonstrates a very callous disregard for the real-life experiences of
women and their families.
It is tragic--tragic--that the Tea Party Republicans refuse to bring
up any bill that would create jobs but would rather wage war against
the women of the District of Columbia. It is offensive, it is wrong,
and it is unconstitutional. Government and politicians should stay out
of the health care decisions of women, and they should stay out of the
private lives of women.
Women's decisions, as it relates to their health care, should be made
by themselves. These decisions should be made with their medical
professionals and their clergy or whomever they choose. Women should be
able to make their decisions, not Members of Congress, not politicians,
and not government officials.
This is a direct threat. It is callous. Again, it is
unconstitutional, and it's wrong.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), vice
[[Page H5445]]
chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
yielding.
I would point out here we seem to talk in abstract terms about what
is really going on. This is a demonstration of dilation, dismemberment,
and evacuation that's taking place in the District of Columbia and
across this country. Mr. Speaker, here is what takes place.
There's a dilation of the cervix. We had testimony of Dr. Levatino
who showed his tools. He reaches in and pulls a leg off of this little
baby and pulls it out and puts it on a plate. He reaches in and pulls
another leg off and does the same thing. He reminded us that this isn't
an easy process. It's difficult to do so. You've got to pull hard, then
reach in and grab another piece of the torso and pull that out until
you count up all the pieces on the plate and you get down to this
little baby's head. For the head, there's a special tool to squeeze
that little baby's head, crush that head and then pull it out.
Who of us could watch such a procedure? Who of us could conduct such
a procedure? Who of us? Dr. Levatino did, hundreds of times in his
testimony. But his little girl died, and he took 2 weeks off and came
back to work again thinking he was going to commit other abortions. He
got halfway through, and he said, I looked at that pile of goo on the
plate, and I realized that's somebody's daughter. This is somebody's
daughter. This is somebody's son. This is a little baby. This is a
little miracle of life. This is God's image being torn apart and
dismembered and placed on a plate. And I'm hearing it's a
constitutional right to do such an abhorrent thing. It's ghastly, and
it's ghoulish, and it's the worst thing that I think one could put
their hand to. If you can't watch it, you sure can't do it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud now to recognize the delegate
from Washington, D.C., an excellent Member of this body, Eleanor Holmes
Norton, for as much time as she may consume.
Ms. NORTON. I thank the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee
for the hearings that they held that exposed this bill for what it does
to reproductive choice in our country unconstitutionally on two scores,
because it targets also the District of Columbia and therefore
separates us out, we who live in the District of Columbia, in violation
of the 14th Amendment for treatment differently from women who live
just across the river in one part of our country, or in any part of our
country.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in our history that a standalone
bill has come to the floor to deny the residents of the Nation's
Capital the same constitutional rights as other Americans. We won't
stand for it. Yet the folks behind this bill care nothing about the
District of Columbia. They have picked on the District to get a phony
Federal imprimatur on a bill that targets Roe v. Wade. In the process,
they have picked a fight they do not want and cannot win with pro-
choice America.
Bills based on pain or principle would not target only one city that
has no vote on a bill that involves only the residents of that city.
Women have blown the cover from a bill with a D.C. label because they
know an attack on their reproductive health when they see it.
Republicans have taken the gloves off. No one can any longer doubt
that the war on women is on, even when it is by proxy as with this
bill, infiltrating the Susan G. Komen for the Cure to stop Planned
Parenthood from funding breast cancer screening, defunding Planned
Parenthood, and taking away contraceptives in insurance policies. All
of these battles have failed.
Their final battle on the rights to the reproductive health of
American women, abusing their congressional authority and using the
women and physicians of the District of Columbia, that final battle
must fail as well.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Education
Committee.
Mrs. ROBY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3803, the District of
Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, of which I'm a proud
cosponsor.
In sitting here listening to debate, I want to get a few things
straight. First of all, I am a woman, and I have not declared war on
myself. Second of all, this is not a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.
This is a direct challenge to cruelty to unborn children. Currently,
the policy in D.C. legally allows abortion for any reason until the
moment of birth.
Mr. Speaker, Erin and Blake Hamby, a couple from my home State of
Alabama, were pregnant with their second daughter when Erin had
complications at 22 weeks. And at only 25 weeks and 2 days, their
little baby, Faith, was born on January 8, weighing only 1 pound, 14
ounces, but every bit the same baby as my own children, Margaret and
George, who were born full term.
Faith spent 2\1/2\ months in the NICU, and both she and her parents
struggled daily, but that tiny baby--that tiny baby--is now 6\1/2\
months old and thriving.
In the District of Columbia, Faith could have been aborted not only
at the point at which she was born, but also any day up to the day of
her birth. H.R. 3803 prohibits abortions in D.C. after 20 weeks'
gestation, a time frame based on scientific evidence that the unborn
child can experience pain by at least at this stage of development.
{time} 1820
In June of 2011, Alabama became the fifth State to pass a similar
measure by banning physicians from performing abortions after 20 weeks.
I applaud my home State of Alabama in its admirable fight to protect
human life, such as Faith's when she arrived earlier than expected into
this world. I am proud to vote in support of H.R. 3803 tonight, and I
encourage my colleagues to join me.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arizona has 7 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
May I inform my colleagues that the Planned Parenthood organization
will score today's vote, as will NARAL Pro-Choice America score today's
vote.
Now, Members, let no one be fooled, no matter what title you want to
give the measure that's before us, it is a direct assault against the
Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade and represents another line of
attack against women's reproductive rights. That's why there are so
many women's organizations that are opposed to it and have been.
The measure imposes an outright ban on abortions before viability,
even where a woman's health may be at risk. Do we really want to
support that kind of legislation? In cases where a woman's life is
endangered, it still requires a doctor to focus on the health of the
fetus.
Furthermore, this measure will jeopardize a women's health, her
ability to have children in the future, and in the case of rape and
incest would force her to bear her abuser's child. Amazingly, the bill
even fails to include an exception for young girls who are survivors of
rape and incest.
When the American people expect us to focus on putting people back to
work, as former Chairman Nadler remarked, this committee again plays
politics with women's health. Don't support this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership
in this area.
Mr. Speaker, last week I became a grandfather for the first time.
Seeing that defenseless little child for the first time reminded me
just how precious life is and why we're morally obligated to protect
it. H.R. 3803 would do just that, putting an end to a cruel practice
taking place here in our Nation's capital.
The infamous 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade relied upon
medical knowledge that is now obsolete. Recent medical research and
testing shows that an unborn child may have the capacity to experience
pain starting as early as 20 weeks in the womb.
[[Page H5446]]
In fact, in the 2004 case of Carhart v. Ashcroft, Dr. Sunny Anand was
asked whether a fetus would feel pain in a common abortion procedure,
dilation and extraction, also known as ``dismemberment abortion.'' He
testified: ``If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would
assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus, and I believe that
it will be severe and excruciating pain.'' We must stop that, and
that's what this legislation would do.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is obnoxious for three
reasons:
Number one, it picks on the District of Columbia because we can,
because they are defenseless. We wouldn't do this to any State.
Number two, it is a direct contradiction of Roe v. Wade, which says
you cannot ban an abortion before viability. And one ignorant judge in
Arizona, one far-right judge in Arizona who says that a ban is not a
ban, it's only a limitation as long as there's an exemption for the
risk of life to the mother, doesn't change the meaning of the English
language nor the meaning of the Supreme Court.
And three, it's obnoxious because it says to a woman whose health,
whose future fertility, whose health is threatened, we judge that your
health is less important than that pregnancy. It's not your decision;
it's our decision because we're a bunch of arrogant politicians and
you're only a woman who's pregnant, and to heck with you. That's why
it's obnoxious.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
As we know, to much of the world, America stands for liberty, for
freedom. The Capitol and the White House are recognizable symbols of
how Americans have fought and died for the truth: That governments
exist to protect our inalienable rights to life and liberty. But just
blocks from here, steps away from the White House, abortionists
infringe on the rights of society's most vulnerable--the unborn.
While of course we would like to see an end to all abortions, to an
end of the taking of all unborn life, today's legislation focuses on
protecting the unborn at a time when it is a scientific fact that they
are able to feel pain--excruciating pain.
It is cruel, inhumane, and contradictory to this Nation's leadership
as the defender and protector of individual liberties to inflict pain
knowingly on anyone, let alone a defenseless, unborn child. I ask my
colleagues to recognize this fact by supporting this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arizona has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 1 minute.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, when the American people expect us
to focus on putting people back to work, we find ourselves again
playing politics with women's health, pandering to the most radical
interest groups, and wasting time on divisive social issues, which to
some may be good politics, but I would caution my colleagues to
remember why we've been sent here.
This war against women cannot continue. The middle class is fighting
for its life, workers struggling, and yet we're again putting on this
show for the extreme conservatives with an unconstitutional bill that
has no chance of becoming law. In fact, for those who are keeping
count, this is the second time the majority has brought up a bill
restricting access to abortion under a special procedure requiring a
two-thirds vote.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Africa, Global
Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, pain--we all dread it, avoid it, even fear it, and go to
extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and duration. By now,
many Americans know that abortion methods are violent and include
dismemberment of a child's fragile body, chemical poisoning, and
hypodermic needles to the baby's heart. There is nothing humane,
benign, or compassionate about abortion. It is violence against
children, and it hurts women.
But the relatively new scientific understanding that unborn children
are forced to endure excruciating pain in the performance of later-term
abortions--and perhaps even earlier--should shock us. Children not only
die from abortion; they suffer. This is a wake-up call to all
Americans: unborn children feel pain. This highly disturbing fact
should further inspire us all to seek to protect these weak and
vulnerable children.
Tragically, for the defenseless child in the womb, the D.C. Council
voted in 2004 to eviscerate every legal protection afforded unborn
children, making abortion on demand legal in D.C. right up until the
moment of birth.
The D.C. Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, authored by my
distinguished colleague, Trent Franks, seeks to safeguard at least some
of these kids--from 20 weeks onward--from both pain and death.
Of note, today's vote comes on the heels of yesterday's Federal
district court decision upholding a similar law in Arizona.
{time} 1830
In that decision, the judge said, ``by 20 weeks, sensory receptors
develop all over the child's body'' and ``when provided by painful
stimuli, such as a needle, the child reacts, as measured by increases
in the child's stress hormones, heart rate, and blood pressure.''
Mr. Speaker, the poster to my left depicts a D&E abortion, the most
commonly procured method of abortion in later term, a dismemberment
abortion. It involves using a long steel tool to grasp and tear off, by
brute force, the arms and the legs of the developing child, after which
the skull is crushed.
Testifying at the full committee hearing in May, Dr. Anthony
Levatino, a former abortionist who has performed many of these D&E
abortions said: ``Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on
the clamp, set the jaws and pull hard.''
Then he talks about how arms and legs and intestines are all pulled
out. Then he said, ``Many times a little face may come out and stare
back at you. Congratulations! You have just successfully performed a
second-trimester abortion.''
This legislation seeks to protect these kids from this horrible
cruelty.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
Mrs. SCHMIDT. You know, I have heard a lot of debate back and forth,
but my friends, this is not about ending abortion. Oh, how I wish it
was.
This is about ending late-term abortions in the District of Columbia
because of the cruel way that those babies are terminated. The
dismemberment, the pain that is caused by those little innocent babies,
is contrary to what the Founders of our Constitution wanted for our
Nation. That's what this act is about.
We have the right and the authority, because of the Constitution, to
do this, to end this very barbaric procedure, and that's why we need to
pass this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield our remaining time to the
distinguished delegate from Washington, D.C., Eleanor Holmes Norton.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, almost all abortions in the District of
Columbia are performed between six and 10 weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I was denied my request, my request was denied even to
testify on this bill, even though this bill affects only residents of
my city. I was told that, and I did not insist, that the Democrats had
a witness. They had to hear from that witness.
Christy Zink had an abortion at 22 weeks, only after her physician
told her that she was carrying a fetus with half a brain and that if it
were born alive, it would have constant seizures throughout its life.
This bill would not have allowed Christy Zink to have an abortion, and
she would have had to carry that fetus to term.
[[Page H5447]]
She has now had a healthy baby. She still grieves for the baby she
could not have, but she would never have deserved the punishment that
this bill would have inflicted on her.
I ask Members of this House to respect the laws and the women and the
residents of the District of Columbia. Let us do what you insist all
over the United States be done in your districts.
We differ. Respect our differences, even as I respect yours.
[From the Washington Post, July 27, 2012]
The Kind of Woman Who Needs a Late-term Abortion
(By Christy Zink)
Introduce me to the woman who has an abortion after 20
weeks because she is cruel and heartless. Introduce me to the
lazy gal who gets knocked up and ignores her condition until,
more than halfway through her pregnancy, she ends it because
it has become too darn inconvenient for her selfish
lifestyle.
If such a woman exists, I have never met her. Sadly,
however, she appears to have influenced the thinking of even
savvy, politically informed people in this country.
Otherwise, how could they argue that carrying to term is
always the right decision late in pregnancy? In fact, the
myth of such callous women has been compelling enough to push
along a bill that would ban abortion in the District after 20
weeks of pregnancy; the bill was approved this month by the
House Judiciary Committee, moving it forward for
consideration by the full House, perhaps as soon as Tuesday.
Believing this fabrication of the radical right depends on
one's ability to conjure at once a perfectly unfeeling woman
and a perfectly healthy child, a stand-in for the much more
tragic and complex reality. Meet, instead, a real live,
breathing woman who terminated a much-wanted pregnancy at
almost 22 weeks, when her baby was found to have severe fetal
anomalies of the brain.
My son's condition could not have been detected earlier in
the pregnancy. Far from lazy, I was conscientious about
prenatal care. I received excellent medical attention from my
obstetrician, one of the District's best. Only at our 20-week
sonogram were there warning signs, and only with a high-
powered MRI did we discover the devastating truth of our
son's condition. He was missing the corpus callosum, the
central connecting structure of the brain, and essentially
one side of his brain.
If he survived the pregnancy and birth, the doctors told
us, he would have been born into a life of continuous
seizures and near-constant pain. He might never have left the
hospital. To help control the seizures, he would have needed
surgery to remove more of what little brain matter he had.
That was the reality for me and for my family.
Meet, too, the many real women I know who belong to one of
the saddest groups in the world: those carrying babies for
whom there was no real hope and who made the heartbreaking
decision to end their pregnancies for medical reasons. Meet
the women among this group who had gotten, they thought,
safely to the middle of pregnancy, who had been planning
nurseries and filling baby registries, only to find they
would need to plan a memorial service and to build, somehow,
a life in aftermath.
We are not reckless, ruthless creatures. Our hearts hurt
each day for our losses. We mourn. We speak the names and
nicknames of each other's babies to one another; we hold each
other up on the anniversaries of our losses, and we celebrate
new babies and new accomplishments, all bittersweet because
they arrive in the wake of grief. We extend our arms to the
women who must join our community, and we lament that our
numbers rise every day.
Medical research from the Guttmacher Institute shows that
post-21-week terminations make up less than 2 percent of all
abortions in this country. Women like me can seem an
exception. You also rarely hear stories like mine, because
they involve intensely private sorrow and because there is no
small amount of shame still associated with terminating a
pregnancy, no matter how medically necessary.
The consequences of the House bill, if it becomes law, will
be inhumane. If the restrictions in this bill had been the
law of the land when my husband and I received our diagnosis,
I would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby
who the doctors concurred had no chance of a real life and
who would have faced severe, continual pain. The decision my
husband and I made to terminate the pregnancy was made out of
love--to spare my son pain and suffering.
The ugly politics in this Congress and the sheer number of
Republicans mean that this bill will likely pass in the
House. I understand any citizen's hesitancy when the issue of
the right to middle-term to late-term abortion arises. But I
also know from my own experience that this bill would have
calamitous ramifications for real women and real families,
and that the women it would most affect could never imagine
they would need their right to abortion protected in this
way.
Women and their families must be able to trust their
doctors and retain their access to medical care when they
most need it. To make sure that happens, members of the
Senate and ordinary people across this country must see
through the stereotype of the late-term aborter and see,
instead, the true face of a woman who has been in this
situation. I extend my hand; it is an honor to make your
acquaintance.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, there was a time in this country and even across the
world when protecting little babies from torture was a noble thing.
Mr. Speaker, I've heard my colleagues today call this effort to
protect little babies from tortuous pain extremist ideology. And I
would just suggest to you, sir, if they are right, then, I, for one,
will envy no one that they might call mainstream, because, Mr. Speaker,
this bill simply says that we intend, in the seat of freedom in
America, where Congress has the ultimate and clear responsibility
constitutionally to legislate, that we're going to protect unborn
children that have reached the age where they can feel pain.
Mr. Speaker, today, in Washington, D.C., a child can be aborted in
labor, and that is not who America is.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if we, in this body, cannot find
the courage and the will to protect these little babies from this kind
of torture, then I'm not sure that we will ever find the will or the
courage to protect any kind of liberty for anyone in this place.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that there is the will and the
courage to do that in this body. I would predict that this body will
pass overwhelmingly, by a majority vote, even though we won't maybe
meet the suspension rules, but we will pass by an overwhelming number
of votes this bill today. I believe it'll be 240, 250 votes, and it
will at least demonstrate to the world that there's still a conscience
in this place, that we still stand for the commitment to protect little
babies that have no other people to protect them.
This is our job here, to protect the rights of the innocent, and by
the grace of God we're going to do that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the DC
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It is simply unfathomable
that, other than by the methods banned by federal law, the District of
Columbia allows abortion for any reason, by any method up until the
moment right before birth. While people may differ on the issue of
abortion, Americans overwhelmingly support the notion that abortions
should be restricted at the point at which an unborn child can feel
pain. And with good reason, the ability to experience pain is one of
the traits that makes us human. And the commitment to protect the
defenseless from physical acts of violence is one of the hallmarks of
humanity.
Science demonstrates that by at least 20 weeks after fertilization,
an unborn child can feel pain. In response to this scientific evidence,
to date nine states have enacted laws to restrict late-term abortions.
Just this week, a judge upheld an Arizona law that does the same thing
we're attempting here today, citing the brutal methods used to abort a
baby late in a pregnancy and the scientific fact that unborn children
have developed pain sensors all over their bodies by at least 20 weeks.
It is time to add the District of Columbia to the list of jurisdictions
that put an end to the practice of late-term abortions.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support for H.R. 3803,
the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This
legislation affects the District of Columbia, which, operating under
authority delegated by Congress, repealed all limitations on abortion
at any stage of pregnancy, effective April 29, 2004.
H.R. 3803 would outlaw abortion in the District of Columbia on an
unborn child 20 weeks or more after fertilization, except ``if, in
reasonable medical judgment, the abortion is necessary to save the life
of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder,
physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering
physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself,''
but not including psychological disorders or threats of self-injury.
An unborn child can react to touch merely 8 weeks after
fertilization, and after 20 weeks, the child can feel pain. At this 20-
week mark, a child will recoil from painful stimuli and show
significant increases in stress hormones, and fetal anesthesia is
routinely administered to children who undergo surgery while still in
the womb. There is significant medical evidence supporting the child's
ability to experience pain at 20 weeks, if not earlier, and the
unlimited abortion currently allowed in the District of Columbia is
simply inhumane.
I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of H.R. 3803, which is a
morally necessary and
[[Page H5448]]
common-sense piece of legislation, and I support it fully.
Additionally, I firmly believe that our nation must protect human life
at all stages, and unborn children are no exception. During my time in
Congress, I have stood against abortion and supported numerous pieces
of pro-life legislation. I am also a member of the Congressional Pro-
Life Caucus, and I will continue to fight to protect the lives of the
unborn in any way I can.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
3803, which would make abortions performed at 20 weeks gestation or
later unlawful in the District of Columbia.
Our first priorities in the House of Representatives must be helping
to foster job creation and supporting middle class families.
Instead, the Republicans once again have chosen to take up divisive
social issues and continue their war on women with a radical assault on
women's health care. This time, we are discussing a bill that would be
a dangerous intrusion into the lives of women as well as the governance
of the District of Columbia.
Once again, the Majority is asking Congress to play doctor. This bill
is an attempt to ban safe, legal, and often medically-necessary
abortion services for women in the District of Columbia without the
consent of the city's residents or representatives. It seems to me to
be even unconstitutional.
Even when the Republicans could have received input from District of
Columbia representatives, they refused. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton
was denied the opportunity to testify during a congressional hearing on
this bill that would affect the health and safety of the women in the
District of Columbia.
Besides being misguided and offensive, H.R. 3803 is dangerous. This
bill has only a narrow exception for the life of the woman. This bill
has no exception at all for cases of rape or incest.
It is clear that this legislation is part of a broader strategy to
ban abortion everywhere not just in the District of Columbia.
I oppose this anti-choice, anti-woman, and anti-District of Columbia
bill and urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous piece of
legislation.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 3803, yet another
assault on women's personal decision making.
In Hawaii, people tell me we should be talking about jobs and working
together to get the economy moving. Instead, the House Republican
Majority continues its assault on women. Debating divisive social
issues isn't going to help our economy or create one single job.
A woman's right to choose is a fundamental freedom--there is no place
for politicians in individuals' private medical decisions.
H.R. 3803 restricts access to abortions in the District of Columbia
after 20 weeks, regardless of who pays for the procedure. The bill
wouldn't even allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest, makes
no exception for a woman's health, and would require a woman to carry a
nonviable fetus to term.
A woman shouldn't need to ask a politician for permission to make
private medical decisions. H.R. 3803 would let politicians tell women
what to do.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and get to work on the real
issues people in Hawaii are most concerned about right now, creating
jobs and moving our economy forward.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is taking
action to protect the most vulnerable children in our nation's capital.
H.R. 3803, the ``District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act,'' would limit the District's extreme policy of allowing
abortion for any reason, at any time, up until the moment of birth.
Based on substantial research showing that a child has the capacity to
feel pain starting at 20 weeks of development, we cannot in good
conscience allow the District's policy of permitting late-term
abortions to stand. Although Congress has repeatedly prohibited the use
of taxpayer money for abortions in the capital, the District currently
has one of the most far-reaching abortion policies in the nation,
permitting abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
H.R. 3803 would ban abortions of pain-capable unborn children except
to save the life of the mother. Under the Constitution, Congress and
the President have ultimate responsibility for the governance of the
capital, as Article I, Section 8, states that ``Congress shall . . .
exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such
District.'' As a member of Congress who believes in the sanctity of
human life, I am a strong supporter and co-sponsor of this important
legislation. I deeply regret that I must miss the vote on final
passage, and would have proudly voted yes.
Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3803, the
District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, authored
by my colleague, Congressman Trent Franks. I am an original cosponsor
of this bill that would prohibit abortions in Washington, DC, after 20
weeks of pregnancy, except when the mother's life is at risk. I am
proud that a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives has joined
me and cosponsored this bill.
Ample scientific evidence shows that at 20 weeks, fetuses can feel
pain. Think about that for a moment. They feel it.
This is especially upsetting because most late-term abortions involve
procedures that are particularly heinous. Yet the Washington, DC,
government allows abortions at any time for any reason, up until the
moment of birth. This is unconscionable. The vast majority of Americans
do not support a policy of ``abortion on demand'' after the point at
which fetuses can feel pain. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting H.R. 3803, the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn
Child Protection Act.
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. 3803, 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.
____________________