[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 12 (Friday, January 19, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H560-H569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0930
              BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION ACT

  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4712) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree 
of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted 
abortion, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4712

       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 ``Born-Alive Abortion 
     Survivors Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds as follows:
       (1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, 
     the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws 
     of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of 
     such laws.
       (2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a 
     hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the 
     protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or 
     for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other 
     facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a 
     patient within its care.

     SEC. 3. BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION.

       (a) Requirements Pertaining to Born-Alive Abortion 
     Survivors.--Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:

     ``Sec. 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion 
       survivors

       ``(a) Requirements for Health Care Practitioners.--In the 
     case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a 
     child born alive (as defined in section 8 of title 1, United 
     States Code (commonly known as the `Born-Alive Infants 
     Protection Act')):
       ``(1) Degree of care required; immediate admission to a 
     hospital.--Any health care practitioner present at the time 
     the child is born alive shall--
       ``(A) 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 any other child born alive at 
     the same gestational age; and
       ``(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence 
     required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born 
     alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.
       ``(2) 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 paragraph (1) shall 
     immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or 
     Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.
       ``(b) Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be 
     fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 
     years, or both.
       ``(2) Intentional killing of child born alive.--Whoever 
     intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act 
     that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), 
     shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for 
     intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
       ``(c) Bar to Prosecution.--The mother of a child born alive 
     described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted under 
     this section, for conspiracy to violate this section, or for 
     an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a 
     violation.
       ``(d) Civil Remedies.--
       ``(1) Civil action by a woman on whom an abortion is 
     performed.--If a child is born alive and there is a violation 
     of subsection (a), the woman upon whom the abortion was 
     performed or attempted may, in a civil action against any 
     person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate 
     relief.
       ``(2) Appropriate relief.--Appropriate relief in a civil 
     action under this subsection includes--
       ``(A) objectively verifiable money damage for all injuries, 
     psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of 
     subsection (a);
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of the 
     abortion or attempted abortion; and
       ``(C) punitive damages.
       ``(3) Attorney's fee for plaintiff.--The court shall award 
     a reasonable attorney's fee to a prevailing plaintiff in a 
     civil action under this subsection.
       ``(4) Attorney's fee 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.
       ``(e) 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--

[[Page H561]]

       ``(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.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item pertaining to section 1531 the following:

``1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors.''.
       (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 gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Alabama.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4712.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, the pro-life movement in Washington today 
is so exciting. Forty-five years ago this month, the Supreme Court of 
the United States ruled in Roe v. Wade to make abortion legal and 
available nationwide.
  While many abortion activists celebrate this anniversary, it 
represents a particularly somber occasion for those of us who advocate 
for life at all stages. Every year since this ruling, the pro-life 
community has gathered in Washington to march in peaceful protest, and 
that is exactly what brought thousands of passionate individuals here 
today.
  I would like to extend a very sincere thank-you to each and every 
person who made this trip today to participate in the March for Life. 
For those individuals, their dedication to the pro-life movement is 
inspiring, and I and many of my colleagues stand with them.
  I would especially like to recognize all of the individuals from my 
home State of Alabama who made the 12- to 13-hour trip. I am proud to 
have people like these Alabamians and others here to represent our 
great State and our Nation in this pro-life movement.
  I believe it is only fitting that we take action today here in the 
House of Representatives to defend the defenseless as thousands of 
Americans are here to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. 
I am proud to stand here today as a cosponsor of the legislation that 
we are considering, H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors 
Protection Act.
  I would also like to thank my colleague from Tennessee, Marsha 
Blackburn, for her leadership on this legislation.
  At this point, I don't think that it is a secret that I am 
unapologetically pro-life, and I believe that our laws and our policies 
should assign the utmost importance to every life at every stage. I 
have been proud to stand here on the House floor many times in defense 
of the unborn, but this time we aren't even talking about unborn 
children. We are here to talk about those who have already been born.
  The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is pretty simple. It 
states that, if a baby is born alive after a failed abortion, he or she 
must be given the same exact medical care that would be given to any 
other baby.
  I know we will continue to play politics about when life begins and 
argue about the point at which the law should step in to protect it. 
And while I understand that not everyone agrees with my strong pro-life 
stance, I cannot fathom how any person could be opposed to legislation 
that protects babies who are so alive that you can look them in the 
eye.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4712, the so-
called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
  Despite what its supporters would have us believe, this legislation 
would do nothing to enhance protections or enhance the quality of care 
if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. What it would do, 
however, is directly interfere with the doctor's medical judgment and 
dictate a medical standard of care that may not be appropriate in all 
circumstances, which could, in fact, put infants' lives at greater 
risk.
  Let me say at the outset of this debate very clearly, it has always 
been the law that healthcare providers cannot deliberately harm newborn 
infants and that they must exercise reasonable care in their treatment 
of such infants. The bill's implications that providers who provide 
abortions routinely act in a callous or criminal manner that would 
result in an infant's death or that a provider who performs an abortion 
somehow cannot be trusted to take adequate measures to save a living 
baby's life is insulting and untrue.
  In opposing this bill. I do not oppose in any way proper medical 
treatment for newborn infants, whatever the circumstances of their 
birth, but determining the proper treatment is for medical 
professionals to decide, not politicians in Congress.
  When I supported the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002, my 
reasoning and the reasoning of my pro-choice colleagues was simple: 
Killing an infant who is born alive either by an act of omission or 
commission is infanticide. It was, is, and always should be against the 
law, and we saw no harm in reaffirming that fact.
  That law passed Congress with bipartisan support precisely because it 
was harmless, even if it was also useless, since it did not change the 
preexisting law in any way. The bill specifically just reiterated 
existing law in florid language and did nothing to interfere with a 
doctor's medical judgment or to cause needless harm.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today puts children's lives and 
health at risk. It requires doctors to immediately ensure 
transportation and admission of the infant to a hospital in all cases, 
with no regard as to whether doing so is in the best interest of the 
child's health and well-being.
  This mandate effectively overrides the case-by-case exercise of 
professional medical judgment by healthcare providers and replaces it 
with a blanket rule enforceable with criminal penalties. Such a ham-
fisted approach fails to consider the fact that, in many cases, it may 
be safer and more conducive for the infant's health to care for the 
infant where it was born rather than transporting it many miles away. 
But this bill assumes that Congress knows better, and it imposes a new 
obligation on providers that, rather than saving lives, could put 
infants at risk.

  I am sure that such a result is not what the bill's supporters 
intend, but all too often, this is what happens when Members of 
Congress try to dictate a physician's exercise of professional medical 
judgment.
  Perhaps if this bill had gone through regular order, we could have 
avoided this unfortunate situation, but there has never been a 
committee markup or a hearing on this bill. I would have welcomed the 
opportunity to hear from expert witnesses on best practices and 
standards of care for infants. Members could have offered amendments 
and perfected the bill to ensure that it achieves our common goal of 
providing the best, most medically appropriate care to infants and 
their mothers.
  I am disappointed but not surprised that my colleagues rushed this 
bill to the floor when there is no evidence at all that doctors 
currently are failing to provide an appropriate level of care and a 
chorus of provider groups oppose the bill.
  This is clearly an effort to have this vote coincide with the 
presence of many anti-choice demonstrators in Washington. Sadly, rather 
than protecting infants, my Republican colleagues are putting them at 
greater risk in the service of politics.
  I cannot support H.R. 4712 because it mandates a particular course of 
treatment: immediate transport to a hospital, which may not be 
appropriate in

[[Page H562]]

every case and may be medically dangerous in certain cases. It abandons 
the practice of considering the best medical interest of infants and 
their mothers.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I have written remarks here, but after 
what I just heard, I have got to change what I was going to share.
  The idea that you could oppose this bill under the ruse that it helps 
children and mothers is absolutely preposterous. The reason that we 
need this bill is because, yes, we did pass legislation in 2002 saying 
that a baby, if they are born during an abortion procedure, deserves 
life, but the problem is it is not being followed.
  You can go out in the hall and visit with some nurses who have come 
here who have experienced the traumatic trauma of witnessing a baby 
born and then being put in a plastic bag and suffocated to death.
  You can visit with the nurses that I have met who found a baby in a 
soiled closet who was born alive and was put there to die.
  You can visit with a young mother named Angelee who unexpectedly gave 
birth to a baby boy in the restroom of an abortion clinic, and once she 
saw that baby, Angelee changed her mind. She wanted it to live. It was 
there. And her friend called the paramedics, but the clinic staff 
turned the medical team away, denying lifesaving care for Angelee's 
baby. The little baby died in the mother's arms as she rocked it and 
comforted it, showering it with love.
  The reason this bill is needed is because it puts penalties on those 
healthcare officials who refuse to provide medical care, refuse to 
follow the law that you state you support. And so if you truly support 
life, if you support these babies, if you support the mother, then put 
some teeth in this legislation and make sure it is followed.
  Madam Speaker, I urge everyone here to support it.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, this bill is yet another inflammatory and 
unnecessary attack on women's rights, namely, a woman's 
constitutionally protected right to an abortion.
  Of course we support proper care for infants who are born. Those of 
us who are mothers know that we want what is best for our children, but 
that is not what this bill is about.
  This so-called Born-Alive bill seeks to further politicize abortion 
and criminalize providers. It is clearly unnecessary because doctors 
are already bound by guidelines that require them to provide emergency 
care when facing life-threatening circumstances.
  Abortion care providers, including Planned Parenthood, are highly 
skilled and highly professional. They do not deserve to be 
criminalized. This is pure political theater.
  Instead of ensuring that women have access to reproductive 
healthcare, the Republican majority is attempting to interfere with 
patients' relationships with their doctors, a provider's ability to 
practice medicine, and our constitutionally protected right to make 
choices about our own bodies.
  And let us be clear: the impact of this will fall disproportionately 
on low-income and rural women and women of color.
  And let's also be clear about this: Roe v. Wade gave women the right 
to access an abortion, and 7 in 10 Americans support that right across 
rural and urban America.

                              {time}  0945

  The vast majority on both sides of the aisle see through these 
cynical attempts to strip women's access to healthcare from the 20-week 
and 6-week abortion bans to these attempts to cut funding to Planned 
Parenthood. Our focus, Madam Speaker, should be on ensuring that every 
person in America has access to comprehensive healthcare, rather than 
harmful bills that strip healthcare or the Republican obsession with 
undermining the Affordable Care Act, which the American people have 
already said a loud ``no'' to.
  We have so much real work to do: passing a real budget, passing a 
clean Dream Act, and fighting climate change.
  Madam Speaker, I reject this bill. Let's do that real work instead.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Alabama, a member of the Judiciary Committee, for her outstanding work 
on this issue.
  Today, thousands of people are rallying in the Nation's Capital to be 
part of the March for Life and to join a celebration of hope and 
compassion for those who do not yet have a voice and to save the lives 
of the unborn.
  Many millions more have viewed videos of representatives of Planned 
Parenthood, which performs some 40 percent of all abortions each year. 
Those videos, recorded undercover, sadly portray a much darker side of 
our society. They show discussions of the exchange of money for the 
body parts of aborted babies. They also include discussions of 
instances during which in course of an attempted abortion, a baby is 
born intact and then shipped to a lab for the use of its body parts.
  Congress must move immediately to protect any children born alive 
during the course of a failed abortion.
  The bill before us today provides that in the case of an abortion or 
attempted abortion that results in a child born alive, any healthcare 
practitioner present must exercise the same degree of professional care 
to preserve the life of the child as he or she would render to any 
other child born alive at the same gestational age.
  The bill also provides that the child must be immediately--
immediately--transported and admitted to a hospital. If a baby alive is 
left to die, the penalty can be up to 5 years in jail. If the child is 
cut open for its body parts or if some other overt act is taken, the 
punishment is that for first-degree murder, which must include life in 
prison or the death penalty.
  Babies are born alive during failed abortions. The House Judiciary 
Committee heard direct testimony by two grown women who, as babies, 
survived attempted abortions. Gianna Jessen's mother was advised by 
Planned Parenthood to have an abortion. But as Ms. Jessen testified: 
``Instead of dying, I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los 
Angeles.'' Her medical records state clearly that she was born alive 
during an abortion.
  She continued to say: ``Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work 
yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, 
suffocation, or leaving me there to die. I was later diagnosed with 
cerebral palsy, which was caused by a lack of oxygen to my brain while 
surviving the abortion. I was never supposed to hold my head up or 
walk. I do. And cerebral palsy is a great gift to me.''
  Just think of that for a moment. Ms. Jessen says cerebral palsy is a 
gift to her because it came with the gift of life. She forgave her 
mother long ago and gives praise each day for that gift of life, which 
she enjoys to its fullest to this day.
  Ms. Jessen presented a picture at the hearing showing the results of 
the sort of abortion she survived.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors 
Protection Act so others who survive failed abortions can have the same 
chance to be as thankful as Ms. Jessen and to support all efforts to 
save the unborn as well.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bera).
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Over 26 years ago I graduated from medical school and took an oath--
an oath that hundreds of thousands of doctors have taken over the 
years--to do good, to do no harm, and to help our patients make the 
best healthcare decisions that affect their own circumstances.
  But this bill, Mr. Speaker, would criminalize the practice of 
medicine and questions doctors' judgments. This bill attempts to 
intimidate doctors from providing safe, evidence-based healthcare. It 
would set the precedent that those without medical training can make 
choices for patients and dictate medical practices.

[[Page H563]]

  Why are we having politicians fill in for doctors?
  Get the politicians out of the delivery room and let doctors care for 
their patients.
  There is no disagreement that every baby born should receive all the 
medical care and treatment to survive. We are all in agreement. That is 
not what this bill is about. This bill is an attempt to undermine a 
woman's access to safe and legal reproductive health services. It is a 
blatant attempt to intimidate doctors from practicing the medicine that 
is in the best interest of their patients.
  That is why I, along with my colleague and fellow physician, Dr. 
Ruiz, attempted to offer an amendment that upholds existing law that 
healthcare providers must exercise the same skill, care, and diligence 
as they would any other child born at the same gestational age.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mitchell). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERA. It would have stopped Members of Congress, most of whom 
have no medical training, from interfering with how doctors practice 
medicine, because these decisions should be between a doctor and 
their patients.

  I have always said that a woman's healthcare decision should be 
between her and her doctor, and that being a woman is not a preexisting 
condition.
  As one of the few doctors who serves in this Chamber, listen to your 
doctor. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' That is what this doctor 
orders. Listen to him.
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mrs. Roby, for being a 
leader in this area.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive 
Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This is commonsense legislation to 
strengthen, under penalty of law, the protection of infants who enter 
the world alive after attempted abortions.
  We agree, as my colleagues on the other side have pointed out, that 
an infant born alive rightly has protection under the law and is, in 
fact, a person. This was established by the Born-Alive Infants 
Protection Act, signed into law by President Bush in 2002 after it was 
passed by voice vote in this Chamber and by unanimous consent in the 
Senate.
  We need this bill because, in practice, babies fighting for their 
lives after an attempted abortion are being denied treatment at the 
hands of so-called physicians.
  This law affirms and protects the survivors of abortions and ensures 
that, just like every other baby who is born, these persons become 
hospital patients and receive the same medical care as any other child 
born in the United States, not left in the very hands of those who 
sought to terminate their life.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an unfortunately necessary bill to ensure 
healthcare professionals comply with the Born-Alive Infants Protection 
Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote to protect our Nation's most 
vulnerable children and to affirm life by voting to support it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the ranking Democrat on the 
Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, this moment in time in this previously 
respected and hallowed Hall is being diminished in the same manner in 
which the White House has recently been diminished. President Trump 
recently had a meeting and he referred to the Roosevelt Room, where he 
had a meeting with Cabinet members and other Senators, as ``the 
studio.'' The studio, as if this is all theater, ``Theatre of the 
Absurd.''
  Now, the President has a history in entertainment, and he may be 
trying to get a lifetime Oscar for the most farcical display or 
appearance of an executive since Governor Lepetomane of Mel Brooks 
fame.
  But this House should not follow in those footsteps and make this 
Congress a studio for a show being presented for the right-to-life 
people who are marching on this anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
  This bill violates regular order, which we were supposed to be 
implementing. There was no hearing in the subcommittee, there was no 
hearing in the committee, and there have been no amendments allowed. 
This is irregular. This is not regular order.
  This is a theater, a show put on and produced by Trent Franks, who 
left this House under disgrace, and continued by this Republican 
administration while this government possibly could go into shutdown. 
Yet we are acting like this is not the situation. We have a bill that 
will go nowhere in the Senate, that is unnecessary, and that violates 
the principles of federalism because most of the principles herein are 
reserved to the States and are unnecessary and are an impediment to a 
woman's health, in many cases making the Members of Congress doctors 
and superimposing their magical medical knowledge over that of 
physicians who are attending the pregnant woman and the child.
  It is already against the law to murder a child. If the child is 
born, it is a child, and to not use the duty of care that a doctor has 
would be murder. That is State law, but it is already the law. To 
require it to be taken immediately to a hospital could endanger the 
child. It should be a decision by the doctor.
  This is the theater of the absurd. We should not be in this House 
making it into a studio like President Trump has made the White House 
into a studio. We should be going through regular order and considering 
bills that have a chance to protect the American people and women.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President of the United States.
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection 
Act requires doctors and nurses present during an abortion to properly 
care for a child who survives it. It is an oath that we take to save 
lives.

  Imagine that, Mr. Speaker. A doctor must give the same care to a baby 
born alive after a botched abortion that they would give to a baby born 
any other way at the same gestational age.
  We are talking about saving living, breathing human beings, human 
beings that were formed in the image of their Creator with inherent 
dignity.
  I am appalled when my friends from the other side of the aisle say it 
would endanger a child to take them to a hospital and to actually call 
for emergency care where all of the services are provided in an 
ambulance and take them to a hospital where they would have the best 
chance to survive.
  As a grandmother and a nurse, it is utterly appalling that we have to 
pass legislation to save babies that are left to die.
  Whether or not we agree that life begins at conception--and I truly 
hope that one day we will--this bill is merciful, it is humane, and it 
is just.
  Abortion is brutal for both the mother and the child, and providing 
care for babies who have survived this horrific practice should never 
be a question. No one should be against this. We all should gather 
together and say that if a healthcare professional does not help to 
save the life of that baby that is born of a botched abortion, they 
should be held criminally liable just as they would for any other life 
that they refuse to save.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is a member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his 
leadership in serving on this committee, and I thank Mr. Cohen for his 
very eloquent explanation.
  Let me say that I stand with these women, Jenny R., Kathy L., 
Lindsey, and Taias, women who have experienced the tragedy of losing a 
child, wanting a child, and wanting the protection of Roe v. Wade. I 
stand with these women.
  I rise today to again ask the question: Why do we divide over the 
wonderment of birth?

                              {time}  1000

  I am reminded of H.R. 2175, passed in 2002, the Born-Alive Infants 
Protection Act, which was widely supported.

[[Page H564]]

  Now, we come on the eve of a failed administration in its first year 
to stand as if we are doing something for those who are coming here--
and I have great respect for their position of pro-life--but it doesn't 
mean that we must undermine the Constitution, add mandatory minimums, 
make up needs where there are no needs. That is what this particular 
bill does.
  This amendment to H.R. 4712 is clearly involving and intruding into a 
process between the mother, the doctor, the family, and her God. There 
is no evidence of lawbreaking that has been uncovered that necessitates 
congressional involvement.
  Abortion is a proven safe, legal, and humane practice. It has to be 
that way under the law. But we are in the middle of violating the 
Constitution and the Supreme Court cases by passing this legislation: 
up to 5 years in prison, a threat of financially crippling lawsuits, 
and, of course, shutting down those health facilities that we 
absolutely need.
  Let me be very clear: we should be dealing with this shutdown that 
the Republicans are planning and moving forward. The reason we should 
be dealing with the shutdown is because law enforcement officers have 
no money, our clinics have no money.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wagner). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, passing by the Capitol Police, it 
made me think of my own law enforcement officers in Houston, Texas. 
Because we do not have a budget, we do not have appropriations, we are 
about to shut down the government. We have a CR. There is no funding 
for police officers. There is no funding for the desperate people who 
have been impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Maria, and Irma. No funding 
whatsoever.
  I salute the Senate and the Senate Democrats for standing firm for 
those people. There are no moneys for federally qualified health 
clinics. There are no moneys for children's health insurance.
  You are not doing your job, and here we are trying to create 
mandatory minimums on a bill that is not necessary. I believe we should 
try to keep this government open with the right kind of law.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4712, the ``Born-
Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.''
  First of all, the majority's failure to govern and address the 
priorities of the American people is staggering as we are faced with a 
fourth continuing resolution finding ourselves four months into the 
fiscal year.
  The majority has yet to come up with a long term spending bill rather 
than an incomplete stop gap that only covers the government until 
February 16.
  Republicans have wasted time creating the GOP Tax Scam and now 
Republicans are still wasting time debating this anti-women bill once 
again while there is no DACA solution and hundreds of thousands of 
immigrants who have grown up in this country and greatly contribute to 
society are facing unfair deportation.
  I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House 
majority to limit women's rights to safe and legal abortions.
  H.R. 4712 amends the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act--a 2002 law 
that the pro-choice community did not oppose.
  This bill, however, adds penalties to the law and an entirely new 
section in which Congress attempts to intrude directly into medical 
practice of abortion care for anti-choice ideological purposes.
  Anti-choice lawmakers say this new bill is necessary because some 
babies ``survive'' abortion procedures.
  They cite the now-discredited videos attacking Planned Parenthood as 
their evidence.
  Of course, such allegations are untrue: newborns already have many 
legal protections, and there is no similarity between safe, legal 
abortion care and infanticide.
  This bill is a solution in search of a problem.
  No evidence of lawbreaking has been uncovered that necessitates 
congressional involvement.
  Abortion practice is safe, legal, and humane; any evidence of 
wrongdoing can and should be handled under existing law.
  If there is ever a case of harm or mistreatment of newborns, then of 
course, it should be investigated and prosecuted.
  No such case exists here.
  That makes it even clearer that H.R. 4712 must have other purposes; 
we believe the bill's true goals are to inflame the public with 
outrageous accusations, to interfere with medical care, and to 
intimidate doctors out of practice.
  This legislation is consistent with the assaults that the Trump 
Administration and anti-abortion members of Congress in both the House 
and Senate have been undertaking throughout the 115th Congress and show 
no signs of ending.
  The bill intrudes into medical practice, its mandate is so broad and 
the penalties so severe--up to five years in prison and the threat of 
financially crippling lawsuits--that one can only conclude that H.R. 
4712 hopes to intimidate abortion providers out of practice.
  This interference in medical care could also cause tremendous 
additional grief to some families making difficult decisions in 
heartbreaking cases.
  We would not tolerate similar intrusion by politicians into any other 
medical specialty; abortion care is no different.
  Finally, it is important to put this legislation into the proper 
context.
  We are in the midst of an unprecedented assault against reproductive 
rights: this bill is just one in a litany to restrict a woman's right 
to choose while using women as political pawns with an extremist, anti-
choice base.
  Instead of spending time attempting to roll back women's 
constitutionally protected rights, this House should be advancing 
legislation that will reform our truly broken immigration and criminal 
justice systems.
  The bill before us is offered for a simple purpose; to sensationalize 
opposition to abortion and serve as a political decoy to shut down our 
government.
  The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. 
Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to 
privacy includes her right to abortion.
  Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have 
substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted 
pregnancies.
  Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services 
only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to 
accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade.
  In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of 
restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's 
health and safety.
  Fights here in Congress have been no different.
  In my state of Texas a law that would have cut off access to 75 
percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged 
before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.
  On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional 
a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that 
provided the fail range of services would be required to have a 
hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.
  This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to 
continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to 
women.
  Texas has 268,580 square miles only second in size to the state of 
California.
  The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to 
reproductive services for millions of women in my state.
  In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to 
reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 
healthcare providers in the state of Texas.
  The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women 
to block the move to close clinics in my state.
  It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access 
to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms.
  But we know that's not really the case.
  If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety, 
they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based 
proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being.
  Instead, they are attacking Planned Parenthood in a back-handed 
attempt to ban abortion.
  That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about 
protecting women's health, it's about politics.
  Just as the 1988 Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel 
(or the Blue Ribbon Commission) sought to separate the question of 
ethics of abortion from the question ethics of using fetal tissue from 
legal elective abortions for medical research when laying the 
foundation for the 1993, NIH Health Revitalization Act (which passed 
overwhelmingly with bipartisan support), we must separate the personal 
views of abortion from the legal issues of federal compliance.
  Namely, the NIH Health Revitalization Act prohibits the payment or 
receipt of money or any other form of valuable consideration for fetal 
tissue, regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is being 
provided is funded or not.
  A limited exception, and crux of the applicable issue of legality, 
lies with provision allowing for reimbursement for actual expenses

[[Page H565]]

(e.g. storage, processing, transportation, etc.) of the tissue.
  Planned Parenthood repeatedly maintains and supports that their 
affiliates involved with fetal tissue research comply with this 
requirement.
  In fact, of the 700+ affiliate health care centers across the 
country, only 4 Planned Parenthood affiliates currently offer tissue 
donation service and of those 4, only 2 (California and Washington) 
offer fetal tissue donation services--that's 1 percent of all Planned 
Parenthood service centers.
  The California affiliate receives a modest reimbursement of $60 per 
tissue specimen and the Washington affiliate receives no reimbursement.
  It is worth noting that fetal tissue has been used for decades.
  Since the 1920's researchers have used fetal tissue to study and 
treat various neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, 
immune deficiencies, cancers and life-threatening blood diseases.
  One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal 
kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now 
estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year.
  The most widely known application in the field of human fetal tissue 
transplantation has been the treatment of Parkinson's disease.
  Many of our other common vaccines, such as polio, measles, chicken 
pox, rubella and shingles, have been developed through the use of fetal 
tissue or cell lines derived from fetal tissue.
  When looking at the 1 percent of health care providers involved in 
fetal tissue donation and research, and no clear credible proof of 
illegal activity, it is obvious that attacks on Planned Parenthood are 
wholly misguided.
  Planned Parenthood has one of the most rigorous Medical standards and 
accreditation processes in the country.
  It is the only national provider that has developed a single set of 
evidence-based Medical Standards and Guidelines that define how health 
care is provided throughout the country.
  Guidelines are developed and updated annually by a group of 
nationally-renowned experts, physicians, and scientists, including 
medical experts from Harvard and Columbia.
  Planned Parenthood affiliates must submit to accreditation reviews 
that include 100 indicators (or high level areas of review) and over 
600 individual Elements of Performance (or measures for review). Half 
of these relate to the provision of medical care and patient safety.
  Violations of mandatory reporting regulations are subject to 
disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
  It is no secret that the Center for Medical Progress is an extreme 
anti-choice organization with a goal of outlawing legal abortion 
procedures in this country.
  To achieve that goal, they have shamelessly targeted Planned 
Parenthood and the funding that provides healthcare services to 
millions of women every year.
  They continue to use deceptive tactics and secret videos to try and 
undermine Planned Parenthood.
  Just like Live Action, the Center for Medical Progress is not a group 
that can be taken credibly.
  The Center for Medical Progress is simply recreating a history 
doctoring and manipulating video intended to create misimpressions 
about Planned Parenthood.
  It is a coordinated effort by anti-choice forces--not only on Planned 
Parenthood or a woman's right to choose, but on women's health care 
across the board.
  Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading 
groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial 
generation.
  My colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to 
services that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and 
STD's, and improve their overall health through preventative 
screenings, education and planning, rather than restricting their 
access to lawfully entitled family-planning and private health 
services.
  I urge all Members to vote against this bill.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has served a long time as the chairman of the 
Pro-Life Caucus
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, in 2018, doctors routinely diagnose and treat 
illnesses and disabilities suffered by the littlest patients: unborn 
babies as well as newborns. They enhance both the child's health and 
longevity.
  Abortionists, on the other hand, take a far different approach. They 
dismember and chemically poison children to death for profit.
  For decades, babies have survived later term abortions. A 
Philadelphia Inquirer story some thirty-seven years ago called baby 
survival ``the dreaded complication.'' In other words, it is a 
complication that a child survives.
  I got involved in the pro-life movement when I read an AP story of a 
child who survived a later term abortion. The abortion rights movement 
then, in 1972, before Roe v. Wade--it was in New York--were apoplectic 
about it because the baby survived. That should have been a reason for 
rejoicing.
  Dr. Willard Cates of the CDC was breathtakingly candid when he said: 
``Live births are little known because organized medicine, from fear of 
public clamor and legal action, treats them more as an embarrassment to 
be hushed up rather than a problem to be solved. It's like turning 
yourself in to the IRS, he said. What is there to gain? The tendency is 
not to report because there are only negative incentives.''
  An undercover investigator asked an abortionist: What do you do? What 
is your protocol when the child is born alive?
  He said: ``I mean the key is, you need to pay attention to who's in 
the room, right?''
  That was what he was quoted as saying.
  We are talking about coverup, ensuring that the people who are in the 
abortion clinic all gag themselves and not speak to the truth of what 
has happened when a baby has been killed after birth.
  The legislation today requires a significant penalty for healthcare 
practitioners present at the time the child survives the abortion, 
exercise the same degree of skill, care, and diligence to preserve the 
life and health of the child, and then get them to a hospital.
  This is humane legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4712, the 
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
  Of course, if a baby is born alive, everything must be done to 
protect that life. No one disagrees with that. Perhaps more 
importantly, it is already the law. To suggest otherwise is just wrong.
  So don't be fooled. This bill is yet another effort to erode women's 
rights to obtain safe, legal abortions and a cynical attempt to appease 
those who have come to D.C. to advocate for the reversal of Roe v. 
Wade.
  H.R. 4712 would insert the opinions of politicians into medical 
practice and the individual rights of women to make their own 
decisions. This is not what women want, what doctors were trained to 
do, and I personally find offensive the fact that there is a suggestion 
that Democrats are not for saving the lives of born children. Of 
course, we are. We all are.
  This is not a necessary piece of legislation. It is already on the 
books.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out that it is not 
currently Federal law, or the law in all 50 States, that a baby born 
alive after a failed abortion receive medical treatment instead of 
being left on the floor to die. That is why we are here today, to 
require under Federal law nationwide that a baby born alive after a 
failed abortion receives medical care and isn't left on the floor or in 
a trash can to die.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Budd).
  Mr. BUDD. Madam Speaker, while many of us in this body disagree on 
the issue of abortion, we should all be able to agree that, once a 
child is born, he or she deserves protection.
  If a doctor attempts to perform an abortion, sometimes a baby 
actually escapes and emerges from the womb still living. If this real-
life scenario isn't terrible enough, sometimes these babies, who are 
breathing the same air as you and I, are left to die and their lives 
are terminated right there in the medical facility.
  Madam Speaker, these surviving children from this terrible procedure 
need our protection.
  Back in 2002, President Bush signed a bill that said if an abortion 
results in the live birth of an infant, that infant

[[Page H566]]

is a legal person for all purposes under our laws. However, this law 
didn't create additional protections for these surviving children.
  That is why I am urging my colleagues to support Mrs. Blackburn's 
bill that would add additional protections. Whether it is making sure 
an infant is immediately taken to a hospital or mandating these doctors 
do everything they can to save their life, these survivors need our 
protection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from North Carolina 
an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BUDD. Madam Speaker, last year, we voted on a bill to ban 
abortions after 20 weeks. While I supported that bill, many of my 
colleagues chose not to, but I urge them to at least support this 
commonsense bill to protect the lives of abortion survivors.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation. Of course, infants 
born alive deserve healthcare. As Dr. Bera just explained, doctors are 
already obligated to provide that. But this bill threatens to send 
healthcare providers to jail and women to back alleys.
  Instead of debating this bill, we should be working to reduce the 
rate of unintended pregnancies which, of course, reduces the number of 
abortions. History shows that when abortions are restricted or banned, 
they do not go away. They become dangerous and unsafe. Look at 
countries that restrict abortion. Every year, thousands of women die 
from unsafe procedures.
  Yet here we are debating a bill that will make criminals out of 
doctors and will drive more women to hazardous self-help methods.
  There are effective ways to reduce unintended pregnancies and improve 
maternal health, which is what we should be doing. Instead, this bill 
disregards the professional judgment of trained medical professionals. 
It imposes extreme new standards of care. That is why providers like 
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly oppose 
this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, women in this country will continue rejecting archaic 
and counterproductive policies like this, just as my colleagues should 
reject this bill.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  Mrs. NOEM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Born-Alive 
Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
  The whole experience of being a first-time parent can be really 
overwhelming. I remember feeling this incredible sense of joy. But 
there are always so many questions, too. How are we going to provide 
for this baby? What kind of person will they become? What if something 
goes wrong?
  There is no doubt a lot of things can go wrong in a pregnancy, but we 
find comfort in the fact that there is a whole team of healthcare 
professionals there who will do everything that they can to care for 
that baby or to save that baby, if necessary.
  But what if they didn't?
  What if they stepped back and refused to deliver care to your child?
  It would be unacceptable.
  Yet when a baby is born alive after a failed abortion, that same 
healthcare professional may not deliver the lifesaving care that that 
baby deserves.
  Melissa Ohden from Sioux City, Iowa, was born alive after an abortion 
attempt. By God's grace and the work of an incredible nurse, Melissa 
survived. As she tells it, there were demands made to leave her there 
to die in the hospital room that day. She says that ultimately a nurse 
rushed her off to the NICU because, in the nurse's words, ``Melissa 
just kept gasping for breath.'' That nurse wasn't going to leave her 
there to die.

  Madam Speaker, every life has dignity and every life deserves 
respect. We ultimately need to ban abortion and protect life from the 
moment of conception. But until that is done, we must fight to protect 
every single precious little life that we can. The Born-Alive Abortion 
Survivors Protection Act will do that and help us be successful in that 
mission.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), a former member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to H.R. 4712.
  This bill would allow the Federal Government to override a doctor's 
medical judgment, without exception. It is motivated by politics, not 
science.
  First, this bill reiterates current law, which already protects all 
newborns from medical negligence. Second, the criminal penalties in 
this bill go above and beyond current law and are clearly intended to 
intimidate doctors. This isn't sound medical practice. This is politics 
impeding a doctor's medical judgment.
  And what is more, this intimidation would endanger newborns. This 
bill would require all newborn infants to be immediately transferred to 
the nearest hospital, but not all hospitals have neonatal units, or it 
might be harmful to move the infant immediately. Clearly, the intent is 
not to protect newborns but to stir outrage.
  This bill is a solution in search of a problem. It is unnecessary, 
redundant, and part of a broader attack on women's health and 
reproductive rights from this Chamber and the Trump administration.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Born-Alive Abortion 
Survivors Protection Act, which I proudly cosponsored.
  This week, we are reminded of our Nation's most vulnerable people as 
we solemnly remember the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. 
Unfortunately, abortion has resulted in the deliberate death of too 
many babies, including babies born alive. We must protect these 
children.
  Today, by this bill, we do protect these children who are born after 
a botched abortion attempt.
  The CDC reported that, during a 12-year period, over 370 babies died 
after being born alive during a termination of pregnancy. The 
intentional neglect of care for these lives is unconscionable.
  We must respect mothers and their children by ensuring necessary 
medical care is given to babies born alive after a failed abortion 
attempt. How hard is that?
  Any doctor denying care to these newborns must be held criminally 
accountable. This legislation does that.
  Madam Speaker, it is our duty to protect all lives, and I took an 
oath to do just that.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding and 
for his tremendous leadership on so many issues.
  Madam Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to this bill, which is 
really just another attempt to criminalize abortion and limit access to 
the full range of reproductive healthcare for women.
  This so-called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is 
another cynical attack on a woman's right to make her own healthcare 
decisions. It is unnecessary and it simply pitches a false narrative to 
the American people in order to intimidate women and providers.
  Madam Speaker, in 2002, Congress passed a bill with broad bipartisan 
support that acknowledges the rights of any child born alive in this 
country, and affirms that any infant should receive appropriate medical 
care. That is a given, and everyone believes that.
  Republicans are distorting the truth about current law. This 
legislation before us is a step too far. It interferes with medical 
practice by enforcing extreme new standards of care through criminal 
and civil penalties on providers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

[[Page H567]]

  

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. In conclusion, I would just like to say that no woman should 
have a politician interfering in her personal health decisions. They 
should be made between her and her medical provider, period.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this very cynical and 
sinister bill and to get out of the business of interfering in women's 
health.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Farenthold), who is also a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4712, 
the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, as have many of my 
colleagues.
  I find it interesting to hear from the party that brought us the 
Affordable Care Act about the government interfering with healthcare 
decisions. But that isn't what I want to talk about today.
  I want to talk about the horrendous practice of sitting and watching 
a child that was born alive die and not providing them care. The Born-
Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 says every infant who is born 
alive, at any stage of development, is a human being. However, there is 
no law right now that criminalizes the act of abortionists who deny 
care to babies who survive abortions.
  These fragile young lives need care immediately once they are born, 
which is why I strongly support this legislation. It not only requires 
appropriate care for children who survive abortions, but it also 
establishes strong criminal penalties for those who violate the law, 
including punishing those who intentionally kill a child born alive. 
Again, I think that is a violation of the Federal murder laws. You are 
intentionally letting a child die, and you could help. You are a 
doctor. You are trained.
  As a strong supporter of life, it is important that we hold those who 
kill innocent children accountable for what they do. I believe this law 
will do that.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to please join me in 
supporting this important legislation to protect the lives of our 
newborn babies.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Born-Alive 
Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
  This should not be a controversial vote. This bill should pass 
unanimously.
  If a little girl is born alive, she should be protected. It is that 
simple.
  Everyone in this House, everyone hearing my voice, was at a point of 
just having been born, and all of us had a right to live at that point, 
whether we were wanted or not.
  I wonder what the great pro-life Democrats of yesterday would think 
of what we are hearing from the other side today, pro-life leaders like 
Eunice Kennedy Shriver; Sargent Shriver; Thomas Eagleton; and, of 
course, the late great Governor Casey of Pennsylvania. Their rhetoric 
reminds me of what Governor Casey said 25 years ago:

       It is a bitter irony that abortion has found a home within 
     the Democratic Party, which claims to be a champion of the 
     poor, despite the fact that the interests of the poor are in 
     direct conflict with the interests and the agenda of the 
     abortion industry.

  Madam Speaker, this is a simple bill. Please vote for humanity. 
Please vote for this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
ranking member for his extraordinary leadership and for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4712.
  In the past year, the usual Republican stream of anti-woman, anti-
choice policies has turned into a flood.
  Today's vile bill is based on myths and lies and is designed to 
intimidate doctors from providing abortions.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that for 45 years, the Supreme 
Court has upheld a woman's constitutional right to access a legal 
abortion, and that current law already protects infants, as well it 
should.
  But Republicans would rather play politics with women's lives than 
rely on science and the law.
  This bill seeks to criminalize legal medical services and put 
extreme, anti-choice ideology between a woman and her doctor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, in what other 
circumstance would we ever tolerate denying, delaying, or interfering 
with legitimate and legal medical care?
  This must stop.
  Protect women from this political charade. Allow doctors to take care 
of their patients.
  Please vote ``no'' on this unfair, vile bill.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
legislation, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
  I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
be arguing, and have been arguing, that there is no reason for this 
bill, that we already have a law on the books to protect children who 
are born alive.
  I was here back in 2002 when the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 
2002 was enacted. However, that law did not criminalize the actions of 
abortionists who deny care to babies who survive abortions. Not only do 
abortion providers not provide care to children who are born alive, 
some are known to actively prevent their lives from proceeding.
  This legislation not only requires appropriate care to be given to 
any child who survives an attempted abortion, but it also establishes 
strong criminal penalties for violating such a requirement.
  I believe it is important to note that the mother of a child is in no 
way being prosecuted under this legislation, and women are not being 
targeted.
  On this 45th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I ask my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Banks).
  Mr. BANKS of Indiana. Madam Speaker, anyone who believes in human 
rights should support giving care to every infant born alive, even 
after an abortion attempt.
  This bill ensures that any child who is born as the result of an 
attempted abortion--a child who is literally outside of the mother's 
womb--is cared for just like any other newborn baby.
  Regardless of our differences on the issue of life, I think all of us 
can come together to protect the lives of children who are already 
born.
  We have seen horrible cases where the lives of children were ended 
immediately after being born, or even neglected and left to die, as in 
Kermit Gosnell's clinic.
  Today I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and protect our 
Nation's children from violence by voting for this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. McEachin).
  Mr. McEACHIN. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Nadler for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4712.
  This act is a continuation of the House Republicans' decadelong 
attempt to rob women of their constitutional right to safe, legal 
abortion care. The bill we are considering today, however, takes these 
attacks on women a step further.
  H.R. 4712 seeks to supersede doctors' professional judgments, 
imposing unnecessary, and potentially harmful, new standards of care. 
Violation of these extreme standards will result in harsh criminal 
penalties.
  This bill seeks to intimidate doctors. If passed, it will discourage 
them from providing care and make it harder for patients to receive the 
help they need.
  That is why it is opposed by respected medical organizations, such as 
the American College of Obstetricians

[[Page H568]]

and Gynecologists, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, the 
National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, and many 
others.
  It is simple: healthcare decisions should be between a woman and her 
doctor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. McEACHIN. Madam Speaker, again, it is simple: healthcare 
decisions should be between a woman and her doctor.
  Politicians are not medical experts and have no place interfering 
with the provision of compassionate, evidence-based care.
  Madam Speaker, I am an attorney and you can trust me with a lot of 
things, but a medical decision on someone else's behalf is not one of 
them.
  As we mark the 45th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we should be 
advancing policies that help women and families, rather than 
restricting access to healthcare they need and deserve.

  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4712.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  Mr. NORMAN. Madam Speaker, as a father of 4 and now 16 grandchildren, 
I strongly support the sanctity of human life, and I believe that life 
begins at conception. Madam Speaker, a person is a person, no matter 
how small.
  Whether a baby is still in the womb, if a child is born prematurely, 
or even if a child is born alive following an attempting abortion, they 
still have a life that is worth protecting.
  Therefore, I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive 
Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by my good friend, 
Representative Marsha Blackburn. This bill will be do so much to 
protect our most vulnerable. I will continue to support legislation and 
advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I stand here to oppose this 
deadly legislation being proposed by my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle.
  When I was 15 years old--and that was in the days before abortion was 
legal--I found a friend bleeding to death because of a back-alley 
abortion. Those were the days that when a woman needed an abortion, she 
would rely on coat hangers and poison.
  This bill is going to take us back to those deadly days. Its aim is 
to intimidate doctors and threaten their own freedom if they dare to 
use their own medical judgment, with the consent of a patient, to 
perform what is now a legal abortion.
  Madam Speaker, I stand and I urge my colleagues to oppose this deadly 
legislation.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the lead sponsor of this 
important bill, who has been such a fierce advocate for the unborn.

                              {time}  1030

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Alabama 
for her leadership on this issue.
  To my friends across the aisle, I want to say I would be hopeful that 
you all would take a few minutes and actually read this legislation. It 
is not a lengthy bill. It doesn't take that long to read. Quite 
precisely, it does a few simple things that need to be done, that need 
to be done to build on the 2002 law that this body chose to pass and 
put on the books.
  Now, the reason that we chose to do this is because of what we have 
learned since 2002. If you go in and look at the Kermit Gosnell trial 
and that house of horrors, and if you take the time to listen to some 
of this testimony, there was a healthcare worker who said, during the 
years of working in that facility, that there could have been as many 
as 100 babies who survived a botched abortion. And what happened? They 
lost their life.
  So this bill is about protecting women and babies. It is not about 
Roe v. Wade. It is all about protecting women and babies. It gives that 
mother who has that abortion, and it is botched, and that baby 
survives--it gives her that civil right of action that she ought to 
have. It does set that standard that you have got to have medical care 
provided to these precious, precious babies who survive that. You do 
that immediately. They deserve that standard of care.
  It says if a healthcare professional does not make the choice to 
provide that care, they are going to face those criminal penalties.
  So, yes, the bill is there to protect women and these babies.
  I just had a great conversation with a young lady who survived an 
abortion. She is an adult now. She stands for life. I encourage this 
body to support the bill and to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors 
Act.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if the other side is ready 
to close?
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I end this debate by reiterating the point I made at 
the beginning. This legislation would do nothing to enhance protections 
or the quality of healthcare if an infant is born after an attempted 
abortion.
  The 2002 law reaffirmed that it has always been, and is now, against 
the law to intentionally kill or harm a newborn infant whatever the 
circumstances of its birth.
  The other side has referred several times to the case of Dr. Gosnell. 
Dr. Gosnell is now in jail under a sentence of life imprisonment 
without parole, plus 30 years, convicted of first-degree murder without 
this bill, because it is already against the law not to give proper 
care or, God forbid, to murder a baby born alive.
  The law already requires the highest standard of care for all 
newborns. This bill does nothing new to protect infants in any respect.
  The bill, however, is not harmless. Rather, by demanding the 
immediate transportation of the newborn to a hospital, regardless of 
the medical or other circumstances, it would place the lives and health 
of some newborn infants at risk.
  The bill directly interferes with a doctor's medical judgment and 
dictates a particular course of action that may be harmful to the 
newborn in the particular circumstances. That is why a coalition of 13 
healthcare provider groups, joined by a coalition of 25 additional 
health, civil rights, and women's rights groups, strongly opposes this 
bill. As the providers note, the bill wrongly ``injects politicians 
into the patient-physician relationship, disregarding providers' 
training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to 
determine the best course of action with their patients.''
  Let me add one other thing. This bill does not interfere, in any way, 
with the rights secured by the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. 
That decision guarantees the right of a woman to choose an abortion if 
she wishes.
  It does not, nor does any other law or any other provision, negate 
the command of the law that everyone respects that any newborn child, 
whatever the circumstances of its birth, must be cared for in the best 
possible medical way, and, of course, deliberately killing it would be 
first-degree murder.
  This bill does not change this, but this bill does do harm by 
presenting risk to certain newborns by demanding their immediate 
transport to the hospital when it may be harmful to their health to do 
so.
  We should listen to the healthcare professionals, we should respect 
their judgment, and the House must reject this seriously flawed bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Of course, like so many of my colleagues, I support this measure, but 
it feels really strange standing here today in defense of living, 
breathing children, to have to make a case that a baby who survives an 
abortion and is born into this world should be treated just like a baby 
born any other way, but, unfortunately, we must.
  There is currently no law mandating that a baby born alive after a 
failed abortion receive medical treatment instead of being left to die. 
That is why we are here, to require, under Federal law nationwide, that 
a baby born alive after an abortion attempt receives the

[[Page H569]]

same care that any other baby would receive.
  So finally my question, Madam Speaker, to those who would oppose such 
a measure is this: How is the life of one baby any different or less 
valuable than the life of another baby? How does anyone justify that?
  I know that, as Members of Congress, part of our job is to debate 
with each other about issues facing our Nation. I take that job 
responsibility very seriously. I just don't believe this particular 
issue is up for debate.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4712. I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule 
and the underlying bill. With this bill, the Majority has declared war 
on the health and wellbeing of millions of women, rolling back women's 
health care. The bill's inflammatory language is an insult to women and 
the doctors who provide them with care.
  This legislation is redundant, and would criminalize the work that 
doctors do legally today. This would unnecessarily intimidate 
healthcare providers like Planned Parenthood, who serve 2.4 million 
Americans every year with lifesaving services like pap tests, breast 
exams, and screenings for sexually transmitted infections. For many 
low-income families, Planned Parenthood is their only option.
  Family planning is a critical component of women's economic security. 
Being able to determine when and how to have children has a direct 
effect on a working woman's ability to chart their course in terms of 
schooling, careers, and family. These decisions should be left to 
women, their loved ones, and doctors.
  This bill is spiteful, mean-spirited, and dangerous. It limits 
women's healthcare choices and interferes with the patient doctor 
relationship--in fact, the American Congress of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists call this legislation, and I quote ``a gross interference 
in the practice of medicine.''
  The Congress should not stop women from accessing care, and we 
certainly should not be hindering a woman's ability to make her own 
healthcare decisions. We ought to be protecting the rights of every 
woman to make her own family planning decisions, and to have access to 
a full range of healthcare services. I urge my colleagues to reject 
this partisan, cruel bill.
  Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of The Born-Alive 
Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
  There is no question that the rule of law should require medical 
practitioners to treat babies born alive after a failed abortion with 
the same care they would treat any baby born at that same gestational 
age.
  Everyone in this body should agree that it is inhumane to willingly 
kill a baby who has been born alive. It's time to end this repugnant 
practice.
  Unfortunately, the left spread the lie that pro-life Republicans only 
care about life when it's in the womb and not once it's born--However, 
the bill before us is about protecting the born and alive and nearly 
all of its support comes from Republicans.
  No human being should be treated with such violence.
  Let's pass this bill and end this horrendous and unthinkable act.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4712, the 
latest attempt by House Republicans to come between physicians and 
their patients.
  H.R. 4712 amends the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (P.L. 
No: 107-207) which I voted for because it codified current law. 
Unfortunately, H.R. 4712 amends the bipartisan Born-Alive Infants 
Protection Act, injecting partisan politics into the healthcare 
decisions of women and their physicians.
  H.R. 4712 would overrule medical professionals by forcing that a 
newborn infant be transported to a hospital regardless of whether that 
would be best for the infant's health. Not only is this a dangerous 
intrusion into the medical decision-making of doctors, but it also may 
endanger infant health. Even if it is in the best interest of the 
infant's health, if a doctor violates this law's mandate, automatic 
criminal penalties of prison time, crippling fines, or both would be 
applied to that medical professional.
  Although supporters of this bill claim that their intentions are only 
to protect newborn infants from medical negligence, the true objectives 
of this legislation are clear: spread misinformation about women's 
reproductive health and to dissuade medical professionals from entering 
the practice of abortion services.
  This legislation is unnecessary. Today, abortion practice is safe, 
legal, and highly regulated to ensure that the best possible care is 
provided to a woman. Existing law ensures that medical professionals 
meet these standards. Let me be clear, an individual who performs 
illegal abortion services should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of 
the law. I join all Members of Congress and all Americans in opposition 
to the horrific actions of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. There is no dispute that 
Dr. Gosnell deserved to be prosecuted, found guilty, and face the 
multiple life sentences that he is now serving due to the laws already 
in place in Pennsylvania and throughout the nation.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 4712 is yet another assault by the Trump 
Administration and Congressional Republicans on women's reproductive 
health. Congress' most basic responsibility is funding the government 
and today we are facing a government shutdown. I urge my Republican 
colleagues to stop playing politics with women's health and get back to 
addressing the urgent needs of the American people like keeping the 
government open.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4712.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  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.
  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.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________