[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2923-H2939]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 255, I call
up the bill (H.R. 36) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect
pain-capable unborn children, and for other
[[Page H2924]]
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 255, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of House
Report 114-111 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered
read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 36
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 ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT.
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. In the
United States, surgery of this type is being performed by 20
weeks after fertilization and earlier in specialized units
affiliated with children's hospitals.
(6) The position, asserted by some physicians, 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) Congress has authority to extend protection to pain-
capable unborn children under the Supreme Court's Commerce
Clause precedents and under the Constitution's grants of
powers to Congress under the Equal Protection, Due Process,
and Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
SEC. 3. 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. PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION.
``(a) Unlawful Conduct.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, it shall be unlawful for any person to
perform an abortion or attempt to do so, unless in conformity
with the requirements set forth in subsection (b).
``(b) Requirements for Abortions.--
``(1) Assessment of the age of the unborn child.--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) Prohibition on performance of certain abortions.--
``(A) Generally for unborn children 20 weeks or older.--
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the abortion shall
not be performed or attempted, if the probable post-
fertilization age, as determined under paragraph (1), of the
unborn child is 20 weeks or greater.
``(B) Exceptions.--Subparagraph (A) does not apply if--
``(i) 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;
``(ii) the pregnancy is the result of rape against an adult
woman, and at least 48 hours prior to the abortion--
``(I) she has obtained counseling for the rape; or
``(II) she has obtained medical treatment for the rape or
an injury related to the rape; or
``(iii) the pregnancy is a result of rape against a minor
or incest against a minor, and the rape or incest has been
reported at any time prior to the abortion to either--
``(I) a government agency legally authorized to act on
reports of child abuse; or
``(II) a law enforcement agency.
``(C) Requirement as to manner of procedure performed.--
Notwithstanding the definitions of `abortion' and `attempt an
abortion' in this section, a physician terminating or
attempting to terminate a pregnancy under an 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.
``(D) Requirement that a physician trained in neonatal
resuscitation be present.--If, in reasonable medical
judgment, the pain-capable unborn child has the potential to
survive outside the womb, the physician who performs or
attempts an abortion under an exception provided by
subparagraph (B) shall ensure a second physician trained in
neonatal resuscitation is present and prepared to provide
care to the child consistent with the requirements of
subparagraph (E).
``(E) Children born alive after attempted abortions.--When
a physician performs or attempts an abortion in accordance
with this section, and the child is born alive, as defined in
section 8 of title 1 (commonly known as the Born-Alive
Infants Protection Act of 2002), the following shall apply:
``(i) Degree of care required.--Any health care
practitioner present at the time shall humanely exercise the
same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to
preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably
diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would
render to a child born alive at the same gestational age in
the course of a natural birth.
``(ii) Immediate admission to a hospital.--Following the
care required to be rendered under clause (i), the child born
alive shall be immediately transported and admitted to a
hospital.
``(iii) Mandatory reporting of violations.--A health care
practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician's
office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure
to comply with the requirements of this subparagraph must
immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or
Federal law enforcement agency or both.
``(F) Documentation requirements.--
``(i) Documentation pertaining to adults.--A physician who
performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an
exception provided by subparagraph (B)(ii) shall, prior to
the abortion, place in the patient medical file documentation
from a hospital licensed by the State or operated under
authority of a Federal agency, a medical clinic licensed by
the State or operated under authority of a Federal agency,
from a personal physician licensed by the State, a counselor
licensed by the State, or a victim's rights advocate provided
by a law enforcement agency that the adult woman seeking the
abortion obtained medical treatment or counseling for the
rape or an injury related to the rape.
``(ii) Documentation pertaining to minors.--A physician who
performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an
exception provided by subparagraph (B)(iii) shall, prior to
the abortion, place in the patient medical file documentation
from a government agency legally authorized to act on reports
of child abuse that the rape or incest was reported prior to
the abortion; or, as an alternative, documentation from a law
enforcement agency that the rape or incest was reported prior
to the abortion.
[[Page H2925]]
``(G) Informed consent.--
``(i) Consent form required.--The physician who intends to
perform or attempt to perform an abortion under the
provisions of subparagraph (B) may not perform any part of
the abortion procedure without first obtaining a signed
Informed Consent Authorization form in accordance with this
subparagraph.
``(ii) Content of consent form.--The Informed Consent
Authorization form shall be presented in person by the
physician and shall consist of--
``(I) a statement by the physician indicating the probable
post-fertilization age of the pain-capable unborn child;
``(II) a statement that Federal law allows abortion after
20 weeks fetal age only if the mother's life is endangered by
a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury,
when the pregnancy was the result of rape, or an act of
incest against a minor;
``(III) a statement that the abortion must be performed by
the method most likely to allow the child to be born alive
unless this would cause significant risk to the mother;
``(IV) a statement that in any case in which an abortion
procedure results in a child born alive, Federal law requires
that child to be given every form of medical assistance that
is provided to children spontaneously born prematurely,
including transportation and admittance to a hospital;
``(V) a statement that these requirements are binding upon
the physician and all other medical personnel who are subject
to criminal and civil penalties and that a woman on whom an
abortion has been performed may take civil action if these
requirements are not followed; and
``(VI) affirmation that each signer has filled out the
informed consent form to the best of their knowledge and
understands the information contained in the form.
``(iii) Signatories required.--The Informed Consent
Authorization form shall be signed in person by the woman
seeking the abortion, the physician performing or attempting
to perform the abortion, and a witness.
``(iv) Retention of consent form.--The physician performing
or attempting to perform an abortion must retain the signed
informed consent form in the patient's medical file.
``(H) Requirement for data retention.--Paragraph (j)(2) of
section 164.530 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations,
shall apply to documentation required to be placed in a
patient's medical file pursuant to subparagraph (F) of
subsection (b)(2) and a consent form required to be retained
in a patient's medical file pursuant to subparagraph (G) of
such subsection in the same manner and to the same extent as
such paragraph applies to documentation required by paragraph
(j)(1) of such section.
``(I) Additional exceptions and requirements.--
``(i) In cases of risk of death or major injury to the
mother.--Subparagraphs (C), (D), and (G) shall not apply if,
in reasonable medical judgment, compliance with such
paragraphs 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.
``(ii) Exclusion of certain facilities.--Notwithstanding
the definitions of the terms `medical treatment' and
`counseling' in subsection (g), the counseling or medical
treatment described in subparagraph (B)(ii) may not be
provided by a facility that performs abortions (unless that
facility is a hospital).
``(iii) Rule of construction in cases of reports to law
enforcement.--The requirements of subparagraph (B)(ii) do not
apply if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the
abortion to a law enforcement agency or Department of Defense
victim assistance personnel.
``(iv) Compliance with certain state laws.--
``(I) State laws regarding reporting of rape and incest.--
The physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion
under an exception provided by subparagraph (B) shall comply
with such applicable State laws that are in effect as the
State's Attorney General may designate, regarding reporting
requirements in cases of rape or incest.
``(II) State laws regarding parental involvement.--The
physician who intends to perform an abortion on a minor under
an exception provided by subparagraph (B) shall comply with
any applicable State laws requiring parental involvement in a
minor's decision to have an abortion.
``(c) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever violates subsection (a)
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more
than 5 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 of
this title based on such a violation.
``(e) Civil Remedies.--
``(1) Civil action by a woman on whom an abortion is
performed.--A woman upon whom an abortion has been performed
or attempted in violation of any provision of this section
may, in a civil action against any person who committed the
violation, obtain appropriate relief.
``(2) Civil action by a parent of a minor on whom an
abortion is performed.--A parent of a minor upon whom an
abortion has been performed or attempted under an exception
provided for in subsection (b)(2)(B), and that was performed
in violation of any provision of this section may, in a civil
action against any person who committed the violation obtain
appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the
plaintiff's criminal conduct.
``(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;
``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of
the abortion; and
``(C) punitive damages.
``(4) 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.
``(5) Attorneys fees for defendant.--If a defendant in a
civil action under this subsection prevails and the court
finds that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous, the court
shall award a reasonable attorney's fee in favor of the
defendant against the plaintiff.
``(6) Awards against woman.--Except under paragraph (5), 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) Data Collection.--
``(1) Data submissions.--Any physician who performs or
attempts an abortion described in subsection (b)(2)(B) shall
annually submit a summary of all such abortions to the
National Center for Health Statistics (hereinafter referred
to as the `Center') not later than 60 days after the end of
the calendar year in which the abortion was performed or
attempted.
``(2) Contents of summary.--The summary shall include the
number of abortions performed or attempted on an unborn child
who had a post-fertilization age of 20 weeks or more and
specify the following for each abortion under subsection
(b)(2)(B):
``(A) the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn
child;
``(B) the method used to carry out the abortion;
``(C) the location where the abortion was conducted;
``(D) the exception under subsection (b)(2)(B) under which
the abortion was conducted; and
``(E) any incident of live birth resulting from the
abortion.
``(3) Exclusions from data submissions.--A summary required
under this subsection shall not contain any information
identifying the woman whose pregnancy was terminated and
shall be submitted consistent with the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2
note).
``(4) Public report.--The Center shall annually issue a
public report providing statistics by State for the previous
year compiled from all of the summaries made to the Center
under this subsection. The Center 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. The
annual report shall be issued by July 1 of the calendar year
following the year in which the abortions were performed or
attempted.
``(g) 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 intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman
known to be pregnant, with an intention other than--
``(i) after viability to produce a live birth and preserve
the life and health of the child born alive; or
``(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.
``(2) Attempt.--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.
``(3) Counseling.--The term `counseling' means counseling
provided by a counselor licensed by the State, or a victims
rights advocate provided by a law enforcement agency.
``(4) Facility.--The term `facility' means any medical or
counseling group, center or clinic and includes the entire
legal entity, including any entity that controls, is
controlled by, or is under common control with such facility.
``(5) Fertilization.--The term `fertilization' means the
fusion of human spermatozoon with a human ovum.
``(6) Medical treatment.--The term `medical treatment'
means treatment provided at a hospital licensed by the State
or operated under authority of a Federal agency, at a medical
clinic licensed by the State or operated under authority of a
Federal agency, or from a personal physician licensed by the
State.
``(7) Minor.--The term `minor' means an individual who has
not attained the age of 18 years.
``(8) Perform.--The term `perform', with respect to an
abortion, includes inducing an abortion through a medical or
chemical intervention including writing a prescription
[[Page H2926]]
for a drug or device intended to result in an abortion.
``(9) Physician.--The term `physician' means a person
licensed to practice medicine and surgery or osteopathic
medicine and surgery, or otherwise legally authorized to
perform an abortion.
``(10) 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.
``(11) 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 post-fertilization
age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is planned
to be performed or induced.
``(12) 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.
``(13) 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.
``(14) 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. 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. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. 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. 36, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, medical knowledge
regarding the development of unborn babies and their capacities at
various stages of growth has advanced dramatically.
To give you a sense of how much technology has advanced, here is the
issue of The New York Times announcing the Roe v. Wade decision in
1973. It contains ads for the latest in advanced technology, including
a computer the size of a file cabinet you could rent for $3,000 a month
that only had one-thousandths the memory of a modern cell phone and a
basic AM radio that was as big as your hand.
Thirty-five years later, in the age of ultrasound pictures, the same
newspaper would report on the latest advanced research on the pain
experienced by unborn children, focusing on the research of Dr. Sunny
Anand, an Oxford-trained neonatal pediatrician who held an appointment
at Harvard Medical School.
As Dr. Anand has testified regarding abortions: ``If the fetus is
beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain
caused to the fetus, and I believe it will be severe and excruciating
pain.''
A few years later, the terrifying facts uncovered in the grand jury
report regarding the prosecution of late-term abortionist Kermit
Gosnell would contain references to a neonatal expert who said the
cutting of babies' spinal cords intended to be late-term aborted would
cause them ``a tremendous amount of pain.''
Congress has the power and the responsibility to acknowledge these
developments in our understanding of the ability of unborn children to
feel pain by prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy,
postfertilization, the point at which scientific evidence shows the
unborn can experience great suffering.
The bill before us would do just that. It also includes provisions to
protect the life of the mother and additional exceptions for cases of
rape and incest.
Some Members, last Congress and today, have called this bill extreme;
but such claims are clearly false, as evidenced by the polls, which
show astounding support for this bill.
A Quinnipiac poll found that 62 percent of people surveyed supported
a ban on abortions after 20 weeks or earlier. A clear majority of men,
women, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, married people, and single people
support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks or earlier.
Among women, 68 percent of women support a ban on abortion at 20
weeks or earlier, including 66 percent of single women and 71 percent
of married women. Even 49 percent of the Democrats polled support a ban
on abortion at 20 weeks or earlier, significantly more than those who
opposed it.
A Washington Post poll similarly found 66 percent support for this
bill, and a Huffington Post poll found support at 59 percent.
Today, America is one of the few countries on Earth, including North
Korea and China, that allows permissive late-term abortions. These
polls show the American people want to change that.
Today is the second anniversary of Kermit Gosnell's conviction for
first degree murder. Following the Gosnell trial, we were all reminded
that when late-term babies are taken from the womb and cut with
scissors, they whimper and cry and flinch from pain. Unborn babies,
when cut inside the womb, also whimper and cry and flinch from pain.
Delivered or not, babies are babies, and they can feel pain at least
by 20 weeks. It is time to welcome young children who can feel pain
into the human family, and this bill, at last, will do just that.
Finally, I would note that it is rare for the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office to be so confident that a bill would save
lives that it makes an estimate as to the number of lives that would be
saved were the bill to be enacted; but the CBO did just that,
conservatively estimating that this bill, if enacted, would save 2,500
lives each year. It could save many thousands more.
Let that sink in for a moment. This bill, if enacted, would probably
save, at a minimum, thousands of lives per year. It would give America
the gift of thousands more children and, consequently, thousands more
mothers and thousands more fathers, with all the wondrous human gifts
they will bring to the world in so many amazing forms, including their
own children, for generations to come.
I congratulate Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice
Chairman Trent Franks for introducing this vital legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1530
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker and Members of the House, this legislation is a
dangerous and far-reaching attack on a woman's constitutional right to
choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, a right that the
Supreme Court guaranteed 42 years ago in the case of Roe v. Wade.
One of the most significant problems with this legislation is that it
fails to include any exception for a woman's health. Many serious
health conditions materialize or worsen late in pregnancy, including
damage to the heart and kidneys, hypertension, and even some forms of
hormone-induced cancer; yet, by failing to include a health exception,
H.R. 36 would force a woman to wait until her condition was nearly
terminal before she could obtain an abortion to address her health
condition.
In addition, H.R. 36 is unconstitutional based on longstanding
Supreme Court precedent. I will explain. Roe v. Wade's basic holding is
that a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion prior to
the fetus' viability. Viability is generally considered to be around 24
weeks from fertilization, not 20 weeks. By banning previability
abortions, H.R. 36 is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.
[[Page H2927]]
In addition, Roe made clear that any regulation on abortion, even
after viability, must not pose a substantial risk to the woman's
health; but, as I have already noted, H.R. 36 lacks any exception to
protect a pregnant woman's health. It is, therefore, not surprising
that the Nation's leading civil rights organizations, medical
professionals, and women's groups oppose this bill.
In addition, 15 religious organizations noted in a letter to Members
of Congress opposing nearly identical legislation in the last Congress
that ``the decision to end a pregnancy is best left to a woman in
consultation with her family, her doctor, and her faith.''
Finally, I want to be clear that, contrary to assertions made by the
bill's proponents, this legislation still contains a woefully
inadequate exception for victims of rape. The so-called rape exception
is still based on a complete lack of understanding of the very real
challenges rape survivors face and why a rape may go unreported.
It is also grounded in the distrust of women, assuming that women
cannot be trusted to tell the truth or to make the best medical
decisions for themselves and their families.
For adult rape survivors, the bill no longer requires that the rape
be reported to law enforcement. However, a woman must still obtain
counseling 48 hours prior to the abortion, and the fact that she has
obtained counseling for a rape must be certified and documented in her
medical file. This counseling cannot be obtained in the same facility
where the abortion is provided.
For minor victims of rape or incest, an exception from the bill's
onerous and unconstitutional restrictions only applies if the rape has
been reported to law enforcement or ``a government agency legally
authorized to act on reports of child abuse,'' so rape is not rape
unless the minor has reported it, even if that means putting her own
safety at risk.
For these reasons, my colleagues, I urge opposition to this dangerous
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) be permitted to control the
remainder of the time as my designee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, when I became a nurse more than 40 years ago, I took a
vow to ``devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care,''
but our understanding of the science limited to the extent to which I
could fulfill that promise has evolved.
During my first years of nursing, if a woman came into our hospital
in labor at 32 weeks of pregnancy, our odds of saving her child were
slim. However, today, babies are being saved as early as 22 weeks into
fetal development, according to a study that was just released this
past week by The New York Times. What's more, there is significant
evidence that, at 20 weeks of development, unborn children have the
capacity to feel pain.
Sadly, while we celebrate advances in technology that prove life has
value and worth before leaving the hospital, we also continue to be one
of only seven nations that allow elective, late-term abortions--one of
only seven nations around this world.
It is difficult to imagine a more important measure of society than
how it treats the most innocent and defenseless population. By
condoning the destruction of unborn life that could otherwise live
outside the womb, the United States tragically fails to meet this most
fundamental human rights standard.
Basic decency and human compassion demand that something has to
change. Polls consistently show that upwards of 60 percent of Americans
support putting an end to the dangerous and inhumane practice of late-
term abortions. To be clear, we have a mandate to act.
That is why I strongly support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act this week, which will provide Federal protection for an
unborn child at 20 weeks, with exceptions to saving the life of the
mother or in cases of rape and incest.
Today's vote coincides with the 2-year anniversary of the conviction
of the evil abortionist, Kermit Gosnell, who killed babies born alive
in his clinic and who is responsible for the death of an adult woman.
Americans were rightfully outraged when they were told of his crimes.
The truth is that innocent, unborn children routinely suffer that
same fate as Gosnell's victims did through ``normal'' late-term
abortions and the government does not bat an eye. The only difference
between these casualties and the loss of life that resulted in
Gosnell's murder conviction is the location.
Madam Speaker, if we cannot appeal to my pro-abortion lawmakers'
sense of compassion when it comes to this issue, then surely we can at
least appeal to their senses of logic and fact.
Knowing that premature babies are being saved as early as 22 weeks
into fetal development, there is no legitimate reason to oppose this
bill. In the year 2015, the United States has no business aborting a
life that can live outside the womb. Science agrees and so do the
majority of Americans.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will right this wrong.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
I appreciate the good feelings and earnest arguments made by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Arizona, but the fact
is this bill is patently unconstitutional because this bill is not
about viability; it is a subterfuge for viability and talks about the
issue of pain. Pain is not the issue; viability is the issue.
What the real issue is, politicians are not medical experts, and
women should make these decisions based upon information from people
they trust. Women should make these decisions based upon information
from people they trust.
The information given about this bill is limited, and the fact is Dr.
Anand, who was cited by my friend, the chairman of the committee, is
from the University of Tennessee in Memphis, where I am from.
The fact is Dr. Anand, if he had gone further, since 2005, has turned
down requests to testify in regard to this type of legislation because
he doesn't think that his studies have been used properly. Abortion is
not the focus, and the politicization of his work has gotten completely
out of hand.
The fact is there are polls that say one thing and polls that say
another. The poll that I respect most shows it to be about an even one-
third split on support, opposition, and indecision.
This isn't about polls; this is supposed to be about the Constitution
and upholding Roe v. Wade and medical experts and not politicians
making decisions that are poll-driven and possibly favorable to their
own constituencies.
The exceptions for incest are the most egregious. If a woman is
pregnant because of incest, under this law, if the lady is under 18
years of age, there is one rule; but, if she is 18 years of age or
older, there is another rule.
What it says is, if you are 18 or over and you are pregnant as a
result of incest, then you cannot get an abortion--you cannot--but, if
you are under 18, you can if you report it to the law enforcement
authorities.
In the discussion last night at Rules Committee, the vice chair of
Rules Committee errantly compared rape and incest. Incest does not
necessarily involve rape. It involves intercourse between parties that
are not legally supposed to have intercourse and issues which could
result in problems for the child.
Incest should always be an exception, and the life and health of the
mother should always be an exception, and the health exceptions are
limited to physical and not mental and emotional, which are the most
pressing for women. There is also a 48-hour waiting period in this
bill.
This bill is unconstitutional and wrong. We should respect medical
experts and not politicians and women to make decisions with people
they trust.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our majority whip.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
[[Page H2928]]
Tennessee for yielding and for her leadership and for all of the people
that have worked so hard to bring this important bill to the House
floor.
If you look at what we are doing here today, we are standing up for
life of our most innocent. We are talking about babies that are more
than 20 weeks in the womb. Scientific evidence shows that after 20
weeks, these babies can feel pain, and so this bill prohibits abortions
after 5 months of pregnancy.
I am proud to come from Louisiana, which has the distinction of being
the most pro-life State in the Nation. Our State already bans this
procedure, as do many.
It is not just States we are talking about. Most nations in the world
don't allow this procedure after 20 weeks. The United States will
finally be joining the vast majority of other countries around the
world and the vast majority of Americans who understand that it is not
right to have abortions after 20 weeks.
This is an important bill. I think it is a very strong message that
we are going to be sending in defense of life by passing it. I urge my
colleagues to support it as well.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the House
Judiciary Committee.
{time} 1545
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 36.
For more than 40 years, the Supreme Court has clearly and
consistently held that women have the constitutional right to terminate
a pregnancy prior to viability or at any time to protect the life and
health of the mother. This bill is unconstitutional as it violates both
of those provisions.
The bill provides a narrow exemption to protect women's lives,
allowing physicians to terminate pregnancy after 20 weeks only if a
woman's life is at imminent risk. This exemption fails to account for
the many severe health issues that may arise late in pregnancy and
forces physicians to think about legal implications rather than about a
patient's health.
Perhaps most cruelly, this legislation includes only a very narrow
exemption for victims of rape and incest, requiring that any woman
seeking an abortion after 20 weeks prove that she either reported the
rape to the authorities or sought counseling services. The unfortunate
reality is only 35 percent of sexual assaults are ever reported, and we
know that there are many reasons for not reporting a rape: the toll our
criminal justice system takes on victims, the humiliation and
intimidation faced by victims of assault, and even the additional risk
to their personal safety.
So why place this limit on the rape exception? What does this narrow
exemption say about our Republican colleagues' view of women? It is
quite simple. This bill says they believe women lie. The Republicans
seem to think that women are too dishonest to believe when they say
they have been raped.
This bill continues a too long tradition of treating women like
second class citizens. Measures introduced at the State and Federal
level to restrict abortions imply that women lie about rape, that women
are misinformed about their own pregnancies and must undergo invasive
tests and exams, and that women are immoral for ever making the choice
to terminate a pregnancy no matter what the circumstance. That is
insulting. It is, frankly, none of our business.
Enough is enough. Doctors, not politicians, should be providing women
guidance, support, and medical advice throughout their pregnancy, and
particularly when making a deeply personal decision to terminate a
pregnancy. And women, not politicians, should make that decision for
themselves.
We must defeat this unconstitutional bill and continue to afford
women their constitutional right enjoyed by every man, without
question, to make decisions about their health care in the privacy of
their doctors' offices. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
terrible bill.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is my honor now to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who is the sponsor of the
bill.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, for the sake of all of those who founded this Nation
and dreamed of what America could someday be, and for the sake of all
of those who died in darkness so Americans could walk in the light of
freedom, it is so very important that those of us who are privileged to
be Members of this Congress pause from time to time and remind
ourselves of why we are really all here.
Thomas Jefferson, whose words marked the beginning of this Nation,
said:
The care of human life and its happiness, and not its
destruction, is the chief and only object of good government.
The phrase of the Fifth Amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution.
It says no person shall ``be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.''
And the 14th Amendment says that no State shall ``deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.''
Madam Speaker, protecting the lives of all Americans and their
constitutional rights, especially those that can't defend themselves,
is why we are all here. Yet today, Madam Speaker, a great shadow looms
over America. More than 18,000 very late-term abortions are occurring
in America every year, placing the mothers at exponentially greater
risk and subjecting their pain-capable unborn babies to torture and
death without anesthesia and without any Federal protection of any kind
in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
It is the greatest human rights atrocity in the United States today,
and almost every other civilized nation on Earth protects pain-capable
unborn babies, at this age particularly. And every credible poll of
Americans shows the American people are overwhelmingly in favor of
protecting them, yet we have given these little babies less legal
protection from unnecessary cruelty than the protection we have given
farm animals under the Federal Humane Slaughter Act.
Madam Speaker, it just seems that we are never quite so eloquent as
when we decry the crimes of a past generation, but we often become so
staggeringly blind when it comes to facing and rejecting the worst of
atrocities in our own time.
Thankfully, Madam Speaker, I believe the winds of change are now
beginning to blow and that this tide of blindness and blood is finally
turning in America because today--today--we are poised to pass the
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in this Chamber. And no matter
how it is shouted down or what distortions or deceptive what-ifs,
distractions, diversions, gotchas, twisting of the words, changing of
subject, or blatant falsehoods the abortion industry hurls at this bill
and its supporters, it remains that this bill is a deeply sincere
effort, beginning at the sixth month, at their sixth month of
pregnancy, to protect both mothers and their pain-capable unborn babies
from the atrocity of late-term abortion on demand. Ultimately, it is
one that all humane Americans can support if they truly understand it
for themselves.
Madam Speaker, this is a vote all of us will remember the rest of our
lives. It will be considered in the annals of history and, I believe,
in the counsels of eternity, itself.
But it shouldn't be such a hard vote because, in spite of all of the
political noise, protecting little unborn, pain-capable babies is not a
Republican issue, and it is not a Democrat issue. It is a test of our
basic humanity and who we are as a human family.
It is time that we open our eyes and let our consciences catch up
with our technology. It is time for the Members of the United States
Congress to open our eyes and our souls and remember that protecting
those who cannot protect themselves is why we are all here. That is why
we are here.
Madam Speaker, it is time for all Americans to open our eyes and our
hearts to the humanity of these little pain-capable unborn children of
God and the inhumanity of what is being done to them.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms.
[[Page H2929]]
DelBene), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, a
nationwide 20-week abortion ban.
It is truly appalling to me that House leaders keep ignoring the
needs of middle class families while taking up bill after bill
restricting women's access to health care--and during National Women's
Health Week, no less.
The legislation we are debating today is an unconscionable attack
that ignores medical safety and puts women's health at risk. It creates
unnecessary burdens to care for sexual assault survivors, who are
already facing extraordinarily difficult circumstances, and it injects
ideology into the doctor-patient relationship. It puts politicians,
rather than women, in charge of their medical care.
Madam Speaker, House leaders need to stop interfering in what is a
deeply personal medical decision. The American people expect better
from this Chamber, and they deserve real solutions to the challenges
they are facing. This bill fails women and their families, and I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is now my delight to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the whole House to
support H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
H.R. 36 is the most pro-life legislation to ever come before this
body, and it reflects the will of the American people. As such, it also
reflects the contributions of many people and many perspectives.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith) for their hard work in bringing this bill to the
floor. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers), our Conference chair, for her leadership in helping
us shepherd this bill to the floor.
I want to take a moment to recognize all of the Americans who spoke
out for this bill. Their voices have been heard. After all, they have
no higher obligation than to speak out for those who can't speak for
themselves, to defend the defenseless. That is what this bill does.
We know that by 5 months in the womb, unborn babies are capable of
feeling pain, and it is morally wrong to inflict pain on an innocent
human being. Protecting these lives is the right thing to do. Again, a
majority of Americans agree.
Madam Speaker, growing up with 11 brothers and sisters, I didn't need
my parents to tell me that every child is a gift from God. But let me
tell you, they did, and they did it often because that respect, that
sanctity, and that dignity is everything.
A vote for this bill is a vote to protect innocent lives and to
protect our dearest values for generations to come. We should all be
proud to take this stance today, and I urge my colleagues to vote for
this bill today.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished
member of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I have had more than a momentous time
to be in this body.
I was moved by the conviction of my friend and colleague and the
Speaker, Mr. Franks and Mr. Boehner, because I know that they speak
from their hearts.
But faith cannot be distributed on one side of the aisle. My faith,
my God is no less than the Republicans'.
I speak for those who cannot be here today. I speak for mothers who
suffer in corners, trying to provide for their children, but love their
children and gave birth to them. I speak for those whom I sat in a room
called the Judiciary Committee some years ago and listened to the pain
of mothers who said: I want this child, but my doctor has advised me
that my life would not have survived to take care of my other children
had I not had the ability to be able to follow my doctor and my faith,
praying with my husband, my faith leader, my extended family to make
the decisions that would, in fact, provide for not only future
children, but for my sanctity and ability to be the woman that I need
to be.
Just outside this Chamber, I met the author of the song ``Glory.''
Many of us heard it in the movie ``Selma.'' In the opening line, it
says: ``One day when the glory comes, it will be ours. It will be
ours.''
Everybody's glory is different. But H.R. 36--besides being
unconstitutional--speaks against 25,000 women in the United States who
became pregnant as a result of rape. Madam Speaker, 30 percent of rapes
involve women under 18. It speaks against those women because it
requires a woman rape victim to report her ordeal before she can
terminate a pregnancy, to go to a law enforcement officer.
It challenges their faith and their love of God. I am incensed that
we challenge someone's faith. I speak for those women who cannot be
here today, who love children, who love life, who are good mothers. And
I take no less in the conviction of those who have spoken for my
conviction and the conviction of those women.
Tiffany Campbell, when she was 19 weeks pregnant, Tiffany and her
husband, Chris, learned her pregnancy was afflicted with a severe case
of twin-to-twin transfusion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
{time} 1600
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome is a condition
where the two fetuses unequally share blood circulation. The news was
devastating, but they had to make a decision that was guided by the
doctor and their faith. The Campbells were told that without selective
termination, they risked the loss of both fetuses. They would not have
any. At 22 weeks, in consultation with their doctors--and I know their
faith--they made the difficult decision to abort one fetus in order to
save the other. Today the lifesaving procedure for one of the fetuses
would be illegal under the new 20-week ban.
Madam Speaker, I beg of my colleagues. I know there will be those who
will vote, but as I stand here today, I do not condemn the conviction
of my friends. But right now I am welled up with tears because I have
hugged those who had nowhere else to go. And no man can stand and tell
a woman what rape is and how it feels and what the results of that is.
That is why the Constitution in the Ninth Amendment and the Supreme
Court interpreted Roe v. Wade as it did.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again
expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. I will come to a close. But I
am welled with emotion, not for killing, but for saving; not for
condemnation, but for appreciation; not for judging, but for letting
people know that I have constituents who are huddled in places right
now in Houston, Texas, in fear, huddled because laws have prevented
them from good counseling, counseling before such tragedy would happen,
laws that have prevented them from having facilities in their area.
They fall victim to shysters because of laws that we pass here.
I cannot see that anymore, and H.R. 36 now makes it a Federal offense
and offends doctors and people of faith. So I close by simply saying
that I love that song ``Glory.'' It says: ``One day when the glory
comes, it will be ours. It will be ours.''
But glory has to be tolerance and acceptance of people's condition.
Prayerfully we must do the right thing in this Congress and vote
against H.R. 36.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, the ``Pain
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.''
I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation the last time
it was brought to the floor under a suspension of the rules and fell
well short of the two thirds majority needed to pass.
I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women
at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of
privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing
American people.
A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating
the Rights of Women Act of 2015.''
[[Page H2930]]
Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across
the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle-
Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have
succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and
revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate
of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the
Clinton Administration.
Madam Speaker, we could and should instead be voting to raise the
minimum wage to at least $10.10 per hour so that people who work hard
and play by the rules do not have to raise their families in poverty.
Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for
the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote
comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing
the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's
decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
The one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible
``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and have
absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 36 seeks to take the misguided and mean-spirited
policy that in 2013 was directed at the District of Columbia and make
it the law of the land.
In so doing, the bill poses a nationwide threat to the health and
wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme
Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.
Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is
that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of
circumstances.
It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur
after 20 weeks.
Women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her
pregnancy that he fetus she was carrying suffered from several major
anomalies and had no chance of survival.
Because of Vikki's diabetic, her doctor determined that induced labor
and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an
abortion.
Because Vikki was able to terminate the pregnancy, she was protected
from the immediate and serious medical risks to her health and her
ability to have children in the future was preserved.
Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different.
No politician knows, or has the right to assume what is best for a
woman and her family.
These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in
consultation with their partners, doctors, their God,
Madam Speaker, I also strongly oppose H.R. 36 because it lacks the
necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.
In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could prohibit a woman
from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect
her health prior to viability.
While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus
of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not
occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.
By prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at ``the probable post-
fertilization age'' of 20 weeks, H.R. 36 violates this clear and long
standing constitutional rule.
Madam Speaker, the constitutionally protected right to privacy
encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy
before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a
threat to her health and safety.
This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.
I strongly oppose H.R. 36 and urge all members to join me in voting
against this unwise measure that put the lives and health of women at
risk.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and
for her leadership on this issue.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of life. Life begins at
conception. We know that after 3 weeks, the baby has a heartbeat. After
7 weeks, the baby begins kicking in the womb. Believe me, as a mother
of three, I know it well. By week eight, the baby begins to hear and
fingerprints begin to form. After 10 weeks, the baby is able to turn
his or her head, frown, and get the hiccups. By week 11, the baby can
grasp with his or her hands. By week 12, the baby can suck his or her
thumb. By week 15, the baby has an adult's taste buds. By week 18, that
baby can flex his or her arms. And by week of 20, Madam Speaker, not
only can that baby recognize the sound of his or her own mother's
voice, but that baby can also feel pain.
Madam Speaker, it is not only the pain of the child that we must be
concerned with, but it is also the pain of the mother.
H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, provides
protections for both the woman and the child. This is not a bill
restricting women's rights. This is a bill that supports and protects
life. This bill is prowoman. It encourages discussion, medical
treatment, and counseling for women who have been victimized. This bill
is prowoman. It empowers women with a civil right of action if this law
is not followed.
This bill, Madam Speaker, is prochild. It ensures that a baby born
alive will be given lifesaving treatment. This bill is a prowoman and
prochild solution to what our science and our values--our deeply held
values--already tell us: that a baby at 22 weeks can feel pain, and
that that baby deserves protection.
Madam Speaker, I am for life at all stages. I am for the life of the
baby and the life of the mother. I will continue to work for the day
when not only is abortion illegal but, Madam Speaker, it is
unthinkable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the
balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), and
that he may control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36. Instead of
considering legislation that would help to promote our economic
recovery, expand educational opportunities, repair our crumbling
infrastructure, or invest in science and research, our House colleagues
on the Republican side continue to pursue an extreme social agenda.
I stand to strongly oppose H.R. 36, which would violate Supreme Court
precedent and impose arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions on
women's healthcare decisions. Every woman in America deserves access to
affordable, comprehensive health care, including full reproductive
health care. H.R. 36 would ban abortions after 20 weeks even though
medical professionals have explained that some deadly and severe
conditions cannot be diagnosed earlier.
Madam Speaker, politicians are not medical experts and should not be
making healthcare decisions for women in this country. These decisions
are properly made by women in consultation with their healthcare
professionals, not by a bunch of politicians in Washington.
In addition, the bill contains an unreasonably narrow exception for
cases in which the woman's life is in danger or the pregnancy is the
result of rape or incest: only if the woman has sought mental health
counseling or reported the incident to law enforcement--even though we
know that a majority of these crimes go undisclosed or unreported.
Madam Speaker, this bill is a dangerous distraction from the pressing
needs facing our country. I urge my colleagues to oppose this terrible
bill and leave healthcare decisions in the hands of the people they
belong in, the women of this country.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Tennessee for her leadership on this important issue.
Madam Speaker, there is a rule in the House of Representatives that
any little child who is a guest of ours can come right down here and be
in the well with us. Now let's assume for a moment that one of those
children tripped and fell and hurt themselves and cried out in pain.
There is not a Member of this body that wouldn't rush to their side and
comfort them. And that is what this bill does today. It rushes to the
side of children who are feeling the pain of violence of abortion.
Let's stand with them. Let's stand with women who deserve better than
[[Page H2931]]
the aggressive tactics of the abortion industry and their profit
seeking and marketing. Let's rebuild our Nation's compassion capacity
so that we can understand what is right and just by protecting the
little ones who are most vulnerable. Let's do something good for
America today.
Mr. COHEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lee).
Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.
Madam Speaker, of course I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36,
which is nothing more than another ideological attack on women's
reproductive rights.
This bill would institute a nationwide ban on abortion after 20 weeks
with no exceptions to protect women's health. It adds unnecessary
burdens and obstacles to deny medical care to women in the most
desperate of circumstances, including in the instance of rape, by
requiring women to seek counseling or medical treatment prior to her
medical procedure. I remember the days of back-alley abortions. Many
women died, and more were permanently injured before Roe v. Wade.
Madam Speaker, with this egregious bill, Republicans have once again
decided to take us back there, to threaten physicians, for instance,
with criminal prosecution. This bill is unconstitutional; it is
dangerous; and it is wrong. No woman should have a politician
interfering in her personal health decisions. They should always be
kept private, period. And my faith is as deep as those using their
faith, imposing their faith on women who must make these very difficult
personal decisions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. LEE. Instead of passing yet another bill that attacks women, we
should get back to the real work that American families desperately
need, like eliminating poverty, instituting real criminal justice
reform, and increasing job opportunities for all.
For those who say that they support life, then why not support
universal preschool, paid family medical leave, affordable child care,
and support those life-affirming measures that we are trying to get
passed here? So I urge a ``no'' vote on this outrageous attack on
women.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chair of the Pro-Life Caucus.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for
yielding and for her extraordinary leadership. Thank you to Trent
Franks, Speaker Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, and
the gentlewoman presiding in the Chair--so many. This has been a team
effort, and it will yield considerable protection when it is finally
enacted into law.
Madam Speaker, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is
landmark human rights law. It recognizes the compelling body of medical
evidence that unborn children feel pain and seeks to safeguard and
protect vulnerable children from the violence of abortion.
Dr. Anand, a leading expert in the area of fetal pain, has said: ``It
is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience
pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived
by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term
newborns or older children.''
Dr. Malloy testified before the Judiciary Committee and said:
When we speak of infants at 20 weeks we no longer have to
rely on ultrasound imagery because premature patients are
kicking, moving, and reacting and developing right before our
eyes in the neonatal intensive care unit.
Today, Madam Speaker, surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to
unborn children--society's littlest patients--to treat diseases and
anomalies and to perform benign corrective surgeries.
Today, there are Kermit Gosnells--you remember him, the infamous
abortionist who was convicted 2 years ago today in Philadelphia. They
are all over America inflicting not only violence and death on very
young children, but excruciating pain as well. And, you know, when it
comes to pain, I don't know about you, but I feel this way, I dread it,
we all seek to avoid it, we even fear it, and we go to great and
extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and duration. This
legislation protects an entire age-specific class of kids from
preventable pain and death.
Madam Speaker, this is human rights legislation, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Madam Speaker, two years ago today, Pennsylvania abortion doctor
Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder, conspiracy to kill and
involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Even though the news of Gosnell's child slaughter was largely
suppressed by the mainstream media, many of my colleagues may remember
that Dr. Gosnell operated a large Philadelphia abortion clinic where
women died and countless babies were dismembered or chemically
destroyed often by having their spinal cords snipped--all gruesome
procedures causing excruciating pain to the victim.
Today, the House considers landmark legislation authored by Trent
Franks to protect unborn children beginning at the age of 20 weeks post
fertilization from pain-filled abortions.
The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is needed now more than
ever because there are Gosnells all over America, dismembering and
decapitating pain-capable babies for profit:
Men like Steven Brigham of New Jersey, an interstate abortion
operator--35 aborted babies were found in his freezer.
Men like Leroy Carhart, caught on video tape joking about his
abortion toolkit--complete with a ``pickaxe'' and ``drill bit''--while
describing a three day long late term abortion procedure and the infant
victim as ``putting meat in a crock pot.''
Or like Deborah Edge who wrote in an op-ed that she ``saw the
abortionist puncture the soft spot in the baby's head or snip his neck
if it was delivered alive.''
Some euphemistically call this choice, but, a growing number of
Americans rightly regard it as violence against children. And huge
majorities--60% according to November 2014 Quinnipiac poll--want it
stopped!
Fresh impetus for the bill came from a huge study of nearly 5,000
babies--preemies--published last week in the New England Journal of
Medicine. The next day, a New York Times article titled: ``Premature
Babies May Survive at 22 Weeks if Treated'' touted the Journal's
extraordinary findings of survival and hope. (Let me note that these 22
week old children referred to in the Times articles are the same age as
the 20 week children that will be protected by this bill. The only
difference is the method used to calculate age.)
Just imagine, Madam Speaker, preemies at 20 weeks are surviving as
technology and medical science advance. And some like Alexis
Hutchinson, featured in the New York Times story is today a healthy 5
year old who originally weighed in at a mere 1.1 pounds.
Thus the babies we seek to protect from harm today may survive if
treated humanely, with expertise and compassion--not the cruelty of the
abortion.
That is why, H.R. 36 requires that a late abortion permitted under
limited circumstances provide the ``best opportunity for the unborn
child to survive'' and that ``a second physician trained in neonatal
resuscitation'' be ``present and prepared to provide care to a child''
consistent with the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act recognizes the medical
evidence that unborn children feel pain.
One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Anand, at the
University of Tennessee stated in his expert report, commissioned by
the U.S. Department of Justice: ``It is my opinion that the human fetus
possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if
not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense
than that perceived by term newborns or older children.''
Surgeons today entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on
unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk, and recoil from
sharp objects and incisions.
Surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children in the
womb. We now know that the child ought to be treated as a patient, and
there are many anomalies, many sicknesses that can be treated while the
child is still in utero. When those interventions are done, anesthesia
is given.
Dr. Colleen Malloy, assistant professor, Division of Neonatology at
the Northwestern University, in her testimony before the House
Judiciary Committee said: ``When we speak of infants at 20 weeks post-
fertilization we no longer have to rely on inferences or ultrasound
imagery, because such premature patients are kicking, moving and
reacting and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive
care unit.''
Dr. Malloy went on to say, ``in today's medical arena, we resuscitate
patients at this age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth.''
She says ``I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to
horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment or
cardiac injection.''
[[Page H2932]]
Other provisions in H.R. 36 include:
An Informed Consent Form including the age of the child; a
description of the law; an explanation that if the baby is born-alive,
he or she will be given medical assistance and transported to a
hospital; and information about the woman's right to sue if these
protections are not followed. Women deserve this information.
The woman is empowered with a Civil Right of Action, so she may sue
abortion providers who fail to comply with the law. Parents are also
given a civil right of action if the law is not followed with regard to
their minor daughter.
In the case of a minor who is pregnant as a result of rape or incest
and is having an abortion at 20 weeks or later, the abortion provider
must notify either social services, or law enforcement to ensure the
safety of the child and stop any ongoing abuse.
In the case of an adult who is pregnant as a result of a sexual
assault and is having an abortion at 20 weeks or later, the provider
must ensure that she has received medical treatment or counseling at
least 48 hours prior to the abortion.
Compliance with State Laws including parental involvement
requirements, and state reporting requirements is required.
The National Center for Health Statistics will issue an Annual
Statistical Report (without personally identifying information)
providing statistical information about abortions carried out after 20
weeks post-fertilization age.
Finally, pain, we all dread it. We avoid it. We even fear it. And we
all go to extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and its
duration.
Today, there are Kermit Gosnells all over America inflicting not only
violence, cruelty, and death on very young children, but excruciating
pain as well. This legislation protects an entire age specific class of
kids from preventable pain--and death.
[From Americans United for Life]
Backgrounder: Maternal Health and Late-Term Abortion
abortion poses significant risks to maternal health by 20 weeks
gestation
A well-respected peer-reviewed journal--one which is also
frequently cited by abortion advocates--notes that,
``Abortion has a higher medical risk to women when the
procedure is performed later in pregnancy. Compared to
abortion at eight weeks of an unborn child's gestation or
earlier, the relative risk increases exponentially at higher
gestations.'' (L.A. Bartlett et al., Risk factors for legal
induced abortion-related mortality in the United States,
Obstetrics & Gynecology 103(4):729-37 (2004)). From the
Bartlett study:
``The risk of death associated with abortion increases with
the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million
abortions at or before eight weeks gestation to one per
29,000 abortions at sixteen to twenty weeks and one per
11,000 abortions at twenty-one or more weeks.''
As noted in the Bartlett study, gestational age is the
strongest risk factor for abortion-related mortality.
Compared to abortion at eight weeks gestation, the relative
risk of mortality increases significantly (by 38 percent for
each additional week) at higher gestations.
In other words, a woman seeking an abortion at 20 weeks is
35 times more likely to die from abortion than she was in the
first trimester. At 21 weeks or more, she is 91 times more
likely to die from abortion than she was in the first
trimester.
Moreover, the researchers in the Bartlett study concluded
that it may not be possible to reduce the risk of death in
later-term abortions because of the ``inherently greater
technical complexity of later abortions.'' This is because
later-term abortions require a greater degree of cervical
dilation, with an increased blood flow in a later-term
abortion which predisposes the woman to hemorrhage, and
because the myometrium is relaxed and more subject to
perforation.
The same exact study is relied upon by the pro-abortion
Guttmacher Institute in its Facts on Induced Abortion in the
United States. In fact, Guttmacher emphasizes the increased
risk by setting it apart in the text:
The risk of death associated with abortion increases with
the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million
abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16-20
weeks--and one per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks.
At least two studies have now concluded that second-
trimester abortions (13-24 weeks) and third-trimester
abortions (25-26 weeks) pose more serious risks to women's
physical health than first-trimester abortions. Other
researchers confirm a substantially increased risk of death
from abortions performed later in gestation, equaling or
surpassing the risk of death from live birth. Researchers
have also found that women who undergo abortions at 13 weeks
or beyond report ``more disturbing dreams, more frequent
reliving of the abortion, and more trouble falling asleep.''
Further, even Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion
provider in the United States, agrees that abortion becomes
riskier later in pregnancy. Planned Parenthood states on its
national website, ``The risks [of surgical abortion] increase
the longer you are pregnant. They also increase if you have
sedation or general anesthesia [which would be necessary at
or after 20 weeks gestation].''
When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, there
was no evidence in the record related to medical data showing
the health risks to women from abortion. The ``abortion is
safer than childbirth'' mantra of 1973 has been refuted by
the plethora of peer-reviewed studies published in the last
40 years. Specifically, recent studies demonstrate that
childbirth is safer than abortion especially at later
gestations.
Moreover, studies reveal that abortion carries serious
long-term risks other than the risk of death. These studies
reveal significant long-term physical and psychological risks
inherent in abortion--risks that, as agreed by both pro-life
and pro-abortion advocates, increase with advancing
gestational age.
In sum, it is undisputed that the later in pregnancy an
abortion occurs, the riskier it is and the greater the chance
for significant complications.
Mr. COHEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, which
amounts to nothing less than an assault on women's fundamental rights.
This is about a woman's ability to make her own decisions in
consultation with her doctor, not politicians.
Not only does this unconstitutional bill run afoul of longstanding
judicial precedent, but it will also jeopardize women's health by
banning abortion after 20 weeks even in cases were pregnancy
complications arise from serious health issues like pulmonary
hypertension, heart condition, kidney disease, and cancer.
What about the life of the mother? Women facing desperate medical
situations will see their healthcare options restricted through this
unacceptable bill.
Furthermore, rape and incest victims will face additional hurdles
when terminating a pregnancy. Doctors and healthcare providers will
encounter threats of fines and even imprisonment when they are simply
trying to provide compassionate care to women in need.
Madam Speaker, this bill inserts the government into one of the most
personal decisions a woman can make and would interfere with the
relationship between women and their doctors. So much for getting
government off my back. I would like to see the government out of my
bedroom.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
{time} 1615
Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, our Declaration of Independence states
that everyone is endowed by our creator with an unalienable right to
life. Recognition of God-given rights is part of who we are.
Indeed, who could forget President Kennedy's words more than 50 years
ago when he said:
Our rights do not come from the generosity of the State but
from the hand of God.
This legislation expands protections for the right to life. It
recognizes that a class of children, unborn babies older than 20 weeks
who feel the pain of abortion, should be protected.
We must stand in solidarity with these vulnerable children and
affirm: we will protect you.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 36.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, this is an outrage. We are
again debating a bill that takes away women's constitutional rights.
I agree with the gentleman from Arizona that we are privileged. We
are privileged to be Members of Congress and represent our districts
and our country, but we are not medical experts, and we are not
privileged to insert ourselves into these most personal decisions that
must remain with women, their doctors, their families, and their faith.
Clearly absent from this Congress' agenda is any discussion about
persistent wage inequality hurting women and their families. What about
paid parental leave? or making sure families get access to quality
child care? What are we doing about feeding hungry children? or making
sure that every child can access education? How about anything at all
concerning women that doesn't have to do with restricting reproductive
rights?
[[Page H2933]]
Let's call this bill what it is. It is an unconstitutional bill that
would force survivors of sexual assault and incest to jump through
hoops in order to get the medical care they need. This bill is an
insult to women and to their families.
As women and families are working hard to move this country forward,
we are seeing a Republican Congress obsessed with moving us backwards.
I urge this Congress to get back to work for them and reject this
unconstitutional and insulting bill.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 36,
the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
This bill takes an important step to protect innocent life.
Scientific evidence shows that unborn babies have the capacity to
experience pain after 20 weeks. Ending these lives through abortion is
both unconscionable and inhumane.
As Members of Congress, it is our duty to protect those who are
defenseless. Our bill affirms the humanity of the unborn while curbing
the inhumanity of abortion. As one of seven children, with five
children of my own, and grandfather of 12, I ask my colleagues to
support this pro-life bill.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Here we are again, at a time when this Congress should be focusing on
the American people's top priorities, drawing our economy, creating
good-paying jobs, dealing with crumbling infrastructure, dealing with
the big challenges that the American people sent us to do, and we are
not doing that; we continue yet another attack on women's health.
Healthcare decisions should be made between a woman and her doctor,
not politicians in Washington. Let me repeat, healthcare decisions
should be made between a woman and her doctor, not politicians here in
Washington. We need to work together on the things we agree on. This
keeps coming up over and over again.
American people, American women, deserve the respect that should be
accorded to them to exercise their right of privacy and their
constitutionally protected right and not have people here in this
Chamber continually attack their decisions that should be made in
direct personal private consultation with their physician. To do
anything other than that, I think, is taking this country and this
Congress in the wrong direction.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Tennessee for her work on this bill and all of my colleagues who had a
hand in it, particularly the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) for
authoring this important legislation.
I think most people would be surprised to learn that the United
States is one of only seven countries in the world that allows elective
abortions to be performed after 20 weeks. Science has shown us that
unborn children can feel pain. Some may argue against this; but then
why would unborn babies, who are given lifesaving operations while
still in the womb, routinely given anesthesia?
The Founding Fathers strongly believed that human beings are created
equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
among which is the right to life. It is the duty of the Members of
Congress to protect those who cannot speak for themselves.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bera), on the day after Yogi Berra's 90th birthday--not
related.
Mr. BERA. Madam Speaker, I am a doctor. I have been a doctor for over
20 years. When I graduated from medical school, I took an oath. That
oath contains that promise of patient autonomy, that I am going to sit
with my patients, I am going to answer their questions, and I am going
to empower them to make the decisions that best fit their lives and
their health care. That is sacred to the oath that I swore when I
became a doctor.
This bill will make it criminal for me to do my job as a doctor. It
is all about empowering our patients to make the decisions that best
fit their lives, answering their questions. It is personal.
I think about this as a father of a daughter. I want my daughter to
grow up in a country where she is in charge of her own healthcare
decisions. When we think about limited government, none of us wants the
government to come into the examining room and get between that doctor-
patient relationship.
This is sacred. This is what health care is all about. It is about
working with our patients, answering their questions, and putting them
in charge of their own healthcare decisions.
This is a bad bill; this is a bill with massive government overreach.
Vote against this bill, and let us do our job as doctors.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Madam Speaker, the most basic responsibility of a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people is to
protect the people. We protect our senior citizens' economic security
with Social Security. We protect our country with our national
security. We have a Department of Homeland Security to protect all
people.
It seems that the very least we can do for the most vulnerable,
defenseless, and innocent among us is to protect them with this basic
right, to protect them from the imposition of the excruciating pain
imposed on them by government sanction no less--abortion.
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 36. It endangers women's health. It
contains a woefully inadequate rape exception, is patently
unconstitutional, and it contains no health exception for the mother.
The entire premise that women must provide ``proof of rape'' is
preposterous and hurtful to women who have already faced incredible
trauma. Most of us cannot begin to fathom what a woman has faced in
these situations. The FBI rates rape the second worst crime, preceded
only by murder, in terms of the destruction and continuing harm to the
victim.
This is truly adding insult to injury. The majority party expects
survivors to be mindful of keeping good medical paper records and to
file paperwork that they, the majority, have decided that the rape
victim should file. The reality is that abortions after 20 weeks are
rare and represent just 1.5 percent of pregnancies that are terminated.
In almost all of these cases, the women choosing an abortion are
doing so because there is a grave problem with their pregnancy and
their own health that affects their fetus. Some fetuses are
incompatible with life, and in some cases, going to full term would
destroy a woman's ability to have future children.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. COHEN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Even after four decades of
settled law, some of my colleagues still refuse to cede women their
constitutional right and the autonomy and human dignity that goes with
being allowed to make your own decisions about your own body and your
own health care.
The party of individual rights and states' rights wants to go into
medical, personal decisions of women in this country with their
doctors.
I urge my colleagues to reject this awful bill, H.R. 36, and
recognize that women are both capable and prepared to make decisions
about their own bodies and their own medical care.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King).
[[Page H2934]]
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
I rise in support of H.R. 36.
I would point out that we have had an estimate of 58 million
abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. That is roughly 14 million
by Planned Parenthood alone, and it is about 1 million abortions a year
in this country.
We ended partial birth abortion for one reason: because those babies'
lives were ended the moment before they could scream for their own
mercy. Now, with the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, we are
going to be able to stop that abortion that is coming because we can
see in 4-D ultrasound that these babies are writhing for their own
mercy.
These babies need to be brought forward into us so that they can
live, learn, laugh, and love so that, one day, they can stand here and
celebrate the life that we gave them.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to make note that we have the American College of Nurse-
Midwives; the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; the
American Medical Student Association; the American Medical Women's
Association; the American Nurses Association; the American
Psychological Association; and many, many others against this bill. I
would like to hear on the other side some of the medical groups that
are supportive of this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
support of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
This bill will protect women and children by establishing Federal
legal protections from unborn babies of 20 weeks. Substantial evidence
has shown that children at 20 weeks, or the fifth month of pregnancy,
have the capacity to feel pain and, due to modern medicine, are
increasingly likely to survive a premature birth.
Furthermore, this bill protects the health of mothers when they are
at their most vulnerable state. At 20 weeks, a woman is 35 times more
likely to die from abortion than she would in the first trimester.
After 21 weeks, that risk of death for the mother increases almost one
hundredfold.
It is fitting that this bill comes before the House floor on National
Women's Health Week, a weeklong observance led by the U.S. Department
of Health encouraging women to prioritize their health.
I am pleased to stand in support of this piece of women's health
legislation today. This bill will empower women in their healthcare
provisions and protect the lives of the innocent unborn.
{time} 1630
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pain-
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
This bill protects unborn children and ensures that those born alive
are given the same level of care as other premature infants.
I would like to introduce you to Micah Pickering and his parents. His
mom, Danielle, recalls being told that her son, if born early, was not
going to be viable at 20 weeks. She says:
We were told that our baby would not cry upon birth. We
were told that he would be stillborn. We were told that, if
by some miracle he survived, he had a 95 percent chance of
horrible, life-altering disabilities that would likely
include not walking, not talking, not even eating on his own.
On the morning Micah was born, he defied all odds. We didn't
know what God's will for Micah was, but we do now--it is to
be a voice for all of those other babies.
I insert into the Record Danielle Pickering's full story and letter.
``Miracle Micah''
(By Danielle Pickering, Mom)
My son was not ``viable''. It was a word we were coming to
hate. It all started the day my water broke, at 21 weeks. I
was treated as if I had a Urinary Tract Infection, instead of
a rupture of membranes. I was sent home with no instructions
to do anything outside of my normal routine. I worked 8 hours
a day in a warehouse, I cooked meals for my husband and
myself, and I went to yard sales like normal, all with my
water broken. One week later, at exactly 22 weeks, I started
having small contractions and bleeding. My husband and I
rushed to the Emergency Room, where they confirmed that my
water was at less than 1 CM, and that I would be ambulanced
to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics for the
remainder of my pregnancy.
When I was admitted my heart rate was high, baby's heart
rate was high, and I was running a fever. They determined
that since baby was not ``viable'' they would like to induce
labor as they feared I had a life threatening infection. We
called on everyone we knew to start praying, and within two
hours I was now stable. We were then told that it was our
decision to induce or to hold out and see what baby does, but
they couldn't do anything at that time to stop labor. We
decided to wait. We couldn't induce when we were sure this
baby was not going to make it.
For the next three days we were told horrific statistics
that no parent should ever have to face. We were told that
our baby would not cry upon birth. We were told that he will
likely be stillborn. We were told that, if by some miracle he
survived he had a 95% chance of horrible life altering
disabilities that would likely include not walking, not
talking, not even eating on his own.
On the morning of 22 weeks and 4 days, Micah was born. He
defied all odds and cried two times upon birth. This was
music to this devastated mom's ears. I didn't get to see him.
He was rushed away by a huge team of Doctors and Nurses
dedicated to saving his life, as that was the choice we had
made. You see, we were told that we didn't have to choose to
intubate him and put him on a ventilator, but we had to do
all we could to save this precious life. He had trusted his
Mommy from conception to care and nourish him, and though my
body was failing him, I wasn't going to! I was going to fight
for him. I was going to advocate for him! I was going to be
the voice of this tiny, fragile little boy who already I was
so in love with, and hadn't even seen yet and thanks to an
anterior placenta I hadn't even felt him kick or move yet.
The second I was able to meet Micah changed my life. He was
so small. I didn't know what to expect. Would he look
``normal''? Could I bond with this baby? Those questions were
a mess in my head as I was wheeled into his room two hours
after his birth. The sight I saw was a perfectly formed baby.
Lots of tubes and monitors all set up to be an artificial
womb to this baby born too soon. My husband and I stood there
just staring at this beautiful little boy who we were told we
couldn't hold as the skin was so sensitive it would hurt him.
We were told we could press lightly on the skin so we each
put our hand near him. HE reached up, and held our fingers.
This was the strongest grasp I would ever feel. I never knew
how strong a baby was until that moment! He had a powerful
grip on our hands, and now our hearts.
Micah was about to spend the next 4 months in the Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit. He was going to go through heart
surgery, at 2 weeks old and just over a pound. He was going
to hang on to life by a thread some days. There were days I
couldn't leave his room. I slept on the floor next to his
warmer bed many nights, because my heart was so grieved for
this tiny baby and I couldn't leave him alone. He was going
to go through every ventilator they had available. He was
going to be on Nitric Oxide to help his lungs. He would get
scores of X-Rays and heel pricks. He was going to do
something amazing-all because we were able to say ``Yes,
Please save our baby''.
Here was this little baby who was on morphine for pain. He
still had his eyes fused shut. You could see his chest
vibrate from the ventilators. It was heartbreaking. Here was
a boy who we would see get to take his first sneeze. His
first smile. We would get to see the hiccups, from the
outside. We would watch his eyes slowly unfuse. We would
watch his hair grow in and we would watch his body develop.
It was indescribably the most joyful time of our life.
We knew the Lord had a plan for Micah. Our prayer to God
from early on was that Micah's life, Micah's story, and
Micah's example would help others, and could somehow save
other babies born too soon. We didn't know what the will for
Micah was, but we do now. It was to be a voice for all those
other babies. We didn't understand at the time that Micah was
right on time, but now we do. Until you are faced with a
situation like this, you cannot grasp the intensity that will
become every decision. You can read every doctor report, you
can get advice from everyone. You can be knowledgeable on
every part of prematurity, but that does not change the fact
that Micah was just as much full of life at 22.4 weeks as he
now is at almost 3 years old. Every scary moment has been
worth it. Every doctor visit, every oxygen tank we went
through, every middle of the night phone call from
Neonatologists, was worth it. We now have a very perfect
almost 3 year old we get to call son, when we were preparing
for empty arms. Our hearts are full because we chose to give
him a chance at life.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, we must protect unborn children from
cruel suffering, and we must ensure that any survivors get treated like
any other premature baby. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 36.
[[Page H2935]]
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
Mr. DEUTCH. I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues have no interest in
preventing abortions after 20 weeks. The motivation behind H.R. 36
could not be more transparent. They want to make abortion after 20
weeks illegal and abortions before 20 weeks impossible.
Consider the story of a young woman named Josephine, who recently
moved to Florida from Texas with her two kids after escaping an abusive
husband.
While trying to build a stable home for her children, she was raped,
and she became pregnant. She couldn't afford an abortion or a trip to
her provider who was more than 80 miles away, so Josephine attempted to
terminate the pregnancy herself by ingesting poison. She ended up
hospitalized, needing several blood transfusions. She was still
pregnant. By the time she gathered enough resources to cover her
procedure and transportation to a provider nearly 80 miles away, she
was 23 weeks pregnant. If this Republican majority were to have its
way, Josephine would be denied access to a safe and legal abortion.
From regulating providers out of business, to requiring waiting
periods, to mandating counseling and medically unnecessary ultrasounds,
this Republican majority has made securing an abortion--has made
exercising a woman's constitutional right--a long and expensive
process. Let's reject this bill and, instead, work to ensure that all
women can control their own bodies, their own health, and their own
destinies.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 36. Let's
call this bill what it is--it is a late-term abortion ban. That is what
it is, and a majority of Americans agree, Madam Speaker, that late-term
abortions should be illegal in this country.
Whether it is unconstitutional is not up for this body to determine.
I believe the Supreme Court will rule that this is constitutional
because there is a reason a majority of Americans believe that late-
term abortions should be illegal--because that baby is developed at 20
weeks postfertilization, developed enough to perceive pain. That is how
developed. It is developed enough to survive outside the womb. That is
how developed. That is why a majority of Americans believe that that
baby has rights as well. That is what we are here to do today. H.R. 36
preserves the rights of that baby to survive.
I practiced OB anesthesia for over 20 years. I was always amazed
that, in the labor and delivery suite, we would deliver 21-week
postfertilization babies and that, down the corridor, they would abort
them. This bill says that, if that baby being aborted is born alive,
someone is going to actually resuscitate that baby. That is what we
need, Madam Speaker. That is why I support H.R. 36.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
Mrs. ROBY. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee and everyone who
has worked so hard on this bill.
Madam Speaker, I have sat here for 25 minutes--or for however long--
listening to this debate, and I have been struck by the opposition to
this bill's constant and consistent argument that this is about leaving
these decisions to the mothers and their doctors.
What about the baby? Who is standing up for that baby who cannot
speak for himself? That is what we are doing here today.
This is such an important measure on behalf of those who don't have a
voice and who can feel pain. It is a shame that such a humane and
compassionate measure has opposition at all, especially since great
care has been taken to protect women and babies in this bill. If we
won't stop abortions at 5 months, when unborn babies feel pain, when
will we stop it? There have to be limits. Even those of us who want to
end abortion altogether in any form support this restriction. Do you
know why? It protects babies. It saves babies. It protects women. It
assigns a greater value to human life.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
Mr. FLEMING. I thank my good friend from Tennessee.
Madam Speaker, I rise today as a physician, as a father, and as a
grandfather in support of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act.
It is no surprise that unborn children as young as 20 weeks
postfertilization feel, respond to, and recoil from pain. These tiny
forming human beings make faces, yawn, stretch, and suck their thumbs.
I have my own granddaughter, who is now about 20 months of age. When we
viewed her 4-D ultrasound, her face compared to today is almost exactly
the same. It is unbelievable how humanlike, how much like a baby, a
baby really is in the womb because--let's admit it--it is a child; it
is a human life.
We celebrate when our friends and families post these precious
ultrasound pictures. In fact, life is always a celebration, and it is
only right that we should be vigilant to ensure that the womb remains
the most peaceful, protected place for a child to grow and be nurtured.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 36, which will protect children in
the fifth month of development from the excruciating pain and intended
violent death of an abortion.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Utah (Mrs. Love).
Mrs. LOVE. Madam Speaker, I was not planning on speaking today. I
didn't put my name on the list to speak today. I was actually sitting
in my office, listening to the debate about this bill, and I
started thinking of my three children. I started thinking about the
decisions that we have to make in order to protect them, and I am
disappointed that there is even opposition to this piece of
legislation.
I want you to know that we, as adults, have a voice. We are able to
speak. We are able to speak in opposition to things, but we have
children who do not have a voice. Those babies whom we know can feel
pain do not have a voice.
Now, I want everyone who is watching today--because I am not trying
to convince my colleagues--to think of their children, to think of
their nieces, their nephews, their grandchildren--the ones that they
love. Would they inflict this kind of pain to keep them from coming
into the world?
We have a moral obligation in this country to protect life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. It is time that we do our job--life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 1 minute
remaining, and the gentleman from Tennessee has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. COHEN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, if people, I think, listen to this debate, they would
see one thing clearly in that there is a difference on the two sides--a
difference in perspective and a difference as to the facts.
Some say that, clearly, the fetus feels pain. My data shows that the
majority of medical opinion says that the fetus does not; and Dr.
Anand, whom they cite--my research shows--has retracted his position
and doesn't want to be involved in this debate, and he is an outlier.
The bottom line is there are differences--differences as to the facts
as well as to the opinions. What that should say to anybody who watches
this debate, Madam Speaker, is this issue shouldn't be decided by
politicians but by medical experts and by women with the people they
trust--medical experts, not politicians--and by women with the advice
of the people they trust.
The truth of this debate came down to a lady from North Carolina who
testified contrary to what she said in January. In January, she said
the bill that came before this House was not a good bill and that it
shouldn't come to the House. It was withdrawn because incest is incest,
and it shouldn't be seen that people 18 and over couldn't get an
abortion if they were victims of incest. This bill allows it. She has
changed her position, and at the close of her statement, she said: I
will not rest until abortion is illegal.
[[Page H2936]]
That is what this is about. It is the beginning of the end of
abortion at 20 weeks, at 17 weeks, at 12 weeks, at 1 week, at
conception. This is an antiabortion bill. It is not about fetal pain.
It is not about 20 weeks. That is what it is about. American women need
to wake up.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, during the course of this debate, we have
heard more than a few mischaracterizations against this legislation. In
truth, this is just a modest, compassionate bill that does not in any
way change abortion law for the first 5 months of pregnancy.
As a nurse for more than 40 years, I know that late-term abortion is
not health, and it is not caring. It takes an innocent life we know can
feel pain inside the womb and a life that is increasingly viable
outside the womb. This is a human rights issue, and we have the
responsibility to act. Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 36.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 36, the
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
As a father of five children, I understand the precious joy children
bring to the world. I firmly believe as a Member of Congress, I should
defend the sanctity of life. I believe it is morally imperative to
protect those who are unable to protect themselves.
As a cosponsor of the bipartisan legislation, I am confident this is
a step in the right direction to protecting unborn children at the
moment that they can feel pain. It is important that Congress continue
to pursue legislation that protects the right to life.
I believe that most constituents in Iowa agree with me. According to
a recent Quinnipiac poll, 62% of Americans support a ban on abortions
after 20 weeks or earlier. Of women polled, 68% supported this bill's
proposed ban on abortions.
I will continue to defend the lives of the unborn and I urge my
colleagues in the Senate to act on this measure.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, there are countless reasons why my
colleagues should reject H.R. 36, the misnamed Pain-Capable Unborn
Child Protection Act. I am unequivocally opposed to the substance of
the bill and the process by which it arrived on the House Floor today.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a
little over one percent of abortions that are performed annually are
resulting from pregnancies over 21 weeks. There are a variety of
reasons why abortion care may become necessary at this stage of a
pregnancy. Some may not know that they are pregnant; some, barred by
public funding bans on abortion, need time to gather the funds for the
procedure; and sadly, a large majority of these abortions are medically
necessary due to severe fetal anomalies or risks to the mother's
health. Doctors must be allowed to offer their patients the best care
possible. Tragically, doctors in violation of this bill, were it to
become law, could face jail time. The new version of H.R. 36 puts even
more burdens on doctors in an all out effort to prevent them from
performing the procedure so women will have nowhere to go for abortion
services.
As you'll recall, H.R. 36 was introduced on the very first day of
the new 114th Congress and just two months later, the Republican
Majority rushed this anti-family bill to the House Floor. However, with
Members of its own party rejecting H.R. 36, the bill was pulled from
the floor the night before it was to be debated on and another anti-
choice bill was put in its place. It has taken over a month to make a
bad bill even worse? The revised bill also forces adult rape survivors
either to report the crime or to seek medical care at least 48 hours
prior to getting an abortion. In order for a woman to comply with this
requirement, not only does a woman have to see a provider other than
the one providing the abortion, but she cannot see any provider in the
same facility where abortions are performed.
While we recently marked the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade
decision allowing women to make their own reproductive choices, this
legislation is nothing but a transparent attempt to restrict their
choices once again. It takes any medical decision that should be made
by a woman on the advice of her doctor and puts it into the hands of
legislators. Now, I know there are several House Members who are also
doctors, but I had no idea so many Members--medical or otherwise--feel
empowered to take this decision on to themselves rather than leaving
these reproductive decisions to the person doing the reproducing: the
individual woman. I am particularly surprised that so many men feel
comfortable making personal bodily medical decisions for women.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 36 is simply outrageous. This bill is
unconstitutional and a blatant attempt to challenge Roe v. Wade at the
expense of the reproductive health of our nation's women. And they
claim there is no war on women. How can they say that when they try to
pass bills like this?
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36,
the so-called ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act''.
I am disappointed that yet again, Congress is debating and voting on
this severely flawed legislation. H.R. 36 ignores the health issues and
real life situations that women can face during pregnancy.
This bill is not based on sound science. And it is certainly not
based on the real experiences of American women and families. This bill
is simply yet another attack on women's health.
Women want--and need--to make their own personal health care
decisions in consultation with their doctor and spiritual advisor--not
their Member of Congress. It is time to start trusting our nation's
women and families to make their own personal health care decisions.
Instead of this political attack on women's personal decision making,
we should be focusing on empowering women by expanding education
opportunities, ensuring equal pay for equal work and increasing access
to quality child care--these are the things that really matter to women
and their families. And these are the things that are going to
strengthen working families and our economy.
We have many critical issues facing this nation that Congress should
be focused on and this is certainly not one of them.
Again, I would like to state my strong opposition to this misguided
and out of touch piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues to vote
no on H.R. 36.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 255, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to
recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Brownley of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
36 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to
report the same to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 6, line 11, insert after ``life'' the following: ``or
health''.
Page 6, beginning on line 12, strike ``whose'' and all that
follows through ``conditions'' on line 17.
Page 11, line 13, insert after ``life'' the following: ``or
health''.
Page 11, beginning on line 14, strike ``by'' and all that
follows through ``injury'' on line 15.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
{time} 1645
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, this is the final
amendment to H.R. 36, which will not kill the bill or send it back to
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final
passage, as amended.
My amendment would ensure that nothing in the bill would prevent a
woman from terminating her pregnancy after 20 weeks if her health were
at risk. Only 1.1 percent of abortions performed in the United States
occur after the 20-week mark. These rare procedures are often the most
medically difficult and dangerous cases where women--many of whom want
and have dreamed of being parents--are faced with impossible decisions.
As it is written, H.R. 36 would force a doctor to wait until a
condition becomes life threatening before performing an abortion. It
shows no concern for the long-term health of the mother, her future
ability to bear children, or her right to make her own medical
decisions.
It ignores that there are very real and very serious reasons why a
woman may need an abortion later in pregnancy. For example, pregnant
women with severe fetal anomalies or women whose amniotic sacs rupture
prematurely and cannot support the fetus
[[Page H2937]]
would be forced to give birth. The bill also treats doctors as
criminals for providing care that has been the law of the land for 42
years, and it puts doctors' safety at risk by requiring public
disclosure of doctors who provide abortion care around the country.
Both the American Medical Association and the American Congress of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists understand that there is no appropriate
one-size-fits-all solution. They oppose bills not based on sound
science and that interfere with the physician's ability to provide the
highest quality of care.
H.R. 36 does more than endanger the health and lives of women. It
also robs rape victims of their constitutionally protected right to
choose. The bill's revised rape exception continues to question rape
victims' honesty by requiring that adult rape victims obtain counseling
or medical treatment 48 hours before obtaining an abortion and
prohibits both services from being performed by a woman's regular OB/
GYN. By placing these onerous burdens on women, this bill revictimizes
women who have already been traumatized and denies women the right to
choose their own doctor.
Further, many women, especially victims of abuse, do not report rape
for fear of reprisal. The National Institute of Justice estimates that
only 35 percent of women report rape. Forcing a survivor to report her
sexual assault before she can terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape
or incest denies her basic rights.
If we are serious about reducing the number of abortions, we should
improve access to birth control and family planning, we should support
comprehensive sexual education, we should do anything but pass this
misguided, misinformed, and ill-conceived legislation.
Instead of bills that harm women, we should work together on
bipartisan legislation to help women and families, including passing
legislation that provides equal pay for equal work, access to child
care, and paid family leave. We should also pass a transportation bill,
fix our crumbling infrastructure, create jobs, and strengthen the
economy. Backward bills, not based in science, that fail to respect a
woman's right to privacy and right to make her own health decisions
have no place in local, State, or Federal legislation.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit, vote
``yes'' to protect women's health, vote ``yes'' for a woman's right to
choose.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Washington is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Speaker, we hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these rights
are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The bill before the House today affirms what a majority of Americans
believe, that over halfway through a pregnancy, an unborn baby deserves
the full protection of the law and the Constitution.
As a mother of three and a legislator, I have always believed that
every life has value, every life deserves the opportunity to reach its
full potential. We live in an extraordinary time in which we are not
bound by the conditions of our birth. We are not sentenced by our
circumstance. And we should not be defined by what limits us but
empowered by what we can become. As lawmakers, it is our responsibility
to ensure that our laws reflect that.
Medical science continues to evolve to create greater potential for
life. Emerging research is challenging what we thought to be true of
the earliest stages of human life. Just last week, The New York Times
highlighted a study that showed a growing number of premature infants
surviving after the point at which this bill would make abortion
illegal.
As a society, we need to ask whether we want to move forward with a
better standard of living or if we want to rely on the outdated
scientific research of the past. I want to legislate for the future,
and the future will be defined by how we use the advancements taking
place today to protect and improve human life.
Those who represent the future are already there. There was a recent
poll that 57 percent of millennials support this legislation, and they
echo the voice of America. Sixty percent of Americans--Democrats,
Republicans, Independents--support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act.
Abortion is really a symptom of larger challenges that exist in our
society, and these challenges demand attention of lawmakers. Pretending
that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to abortion ignores the
complex circumstances that surround each woman who is forced to
consider choosing an abortion.
This bill recognizes that at the halfway point of a pregnancy, a baby
who has developed 5 months, those circumstances are increasingly more
unique. Research shows that abortion becomes riskier to a woman's
health the later it occurs in pregnancy.
We should not trivialize the decision to undertake an abortion at 20
weeks by suggesting that it should be made without additional medical
or emotional support. We should write laws that empower women to make
these decisions. We should support laws that show compassion for women.
We should trust individuals to make the best decisions for themselves.
We want to empower every single person to reach their full potential.
This country has made great strides in empowering all people, no
matter where they started. That is why I am here, to stand as a fierce
protector of every life. The human rights and dignity of each person
should be reflected in every single piece of legislation we bring to
the floor.
This bill asks us to consider whether we, as a society, will tolerate
abortion at any point of development, even though we know babies can
feel pain at 20 weeks and survive outside the womb. This bill asks us
to consider if it is compassionate to maintain a system that does
nothing to offer emotional or medical support for a woman facing the
most difficult decision of choosing an abortion 5 months into her
pregnancy.
These are questions that we must ask, and I am prepared to answer
them by supporting the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and I
urge my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 36, if ordered; passage of H.R. 2048;
and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 181,
nays 246, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 222]
YEAS--181
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
[[Page H2938]]
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--246
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--5
Barletta
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Capps
Hinojosa
{time} 1721
Messrs. McKINLEY and MARINO changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. HASTINGS, and Ms. MOORE changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 184, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 223]
AYES--242
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--184
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
[[Page H2939]]
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Hice, Jody B.
NOT VOTING--5
Barletta
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Capps
Hinojosa
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1732
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________