[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 11, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H178-H190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION ACT
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up
the bill (H.R. 26) 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 in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the bill is
considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 26
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; CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.
(a) 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.
(b) Constitutional Authority.--In accordance with the above
findings, Congress enacts the following pursuant to Congress'
power under--
(1) section 5 of the 14th Amendment, including the power to
enforce the prohibition on government action denying equal
protection of the laws; and
(2) section 8 of article I to make all laws necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the
Constitution of the United States, including the power to
regulate commerce under clause 3 of such section.
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--
``(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 bill shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally dividing the control by the majority leader and minority leader
or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
General Leave
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to enter extraneous materials on H.R. 26.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 26, the Born-Alive Abortion
Survivors Protection Act. In simple terms: Life is precious, life is
sacred, all life, including unborn children, but that is not what this
legislation is about.
This legislation is about those kids who are born alive making sure
they get protected. For over 40 years, the decision in Roe v. Wade, as
Justice Alito has stated, inflamed debate and deepened division over
the issue of abortion in this country.
We have seen that play out over the last year, but what should be
undisputed is the care of a child who is born alive after an attempted
abortion.
Unfortunately, as evidenced by comments from prominent Democrats, not
everyone believes that a child born alive should be protected.
We all know in 2019, then-Governor Northam of the State of Virginia
stated this: The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept
comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that is what the
mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue
between the physicians and the mother.
Think about that. It is not just anybody saying that. It is the
Governor of one of our largest States. The cavalier
[[Page H179]]
attitude he displayed toward human life is just wrong.
H.R. 26 would require healthcare practitioners to give the same level
of care to a child born alive after an abortion or an attempted
abortion as the child at that same gestational age. Work to save the
kid's life, work to help that newborn. It would also require the
immediate transfer of the surviving infant to a hospital.
This legislation requires healthcare practitioners or other employees
to report any violations of this provision to State or Federal law
enforcement for criminal prosecution.
In addition, H.R. 26 provides the mother of an abortion survivor with
a civil right of action against the healthcare practitioner who fails
to provide the required level of care.
It is simple. Infants born alive following an abortion are kids. They
are children. All newborns deserve the same level of care.
In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers declared
that it was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are the
unalienable rights bestowed on us by our Creator.
Congress has a duty to protect these fundamental rights. This should
be an easy vote for all Members.
I thank my colleagues, Representatives Ann Wagner and Kat Cammack,
for their diligent work on this legislation, and I urge all Members to
support it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1345
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 26, 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 the quality of healthcare if
an infant is born after an attempted abortion. What it would do,
however, is directly interfere with a 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.
Finally, by beginning this new Congress with a bill to restrict
women's healthcare nationwide, House Republicans have made clear that
they will not stop until they reach their ultimate goal, a nationwide
ban on abortion.
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
implication that providers who perform abortions routinely act in a
callous or a 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 because, after all, murder is murder in
every State.
The bill specifically just reiterated existing law in florid language
and did nothing to interfere with doctors' 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 actually in the best interest
of the child's health and well-being.
This mandate effectively overrides the careful case-by-case exercise
of professional medical judgment by healthcare providers and replaces
it with a blanket rule enforceable with criminal penalties. It may be,
after all, in a given case, that it is more beneficial to the infant's
health to be treated on the spot and not rushed to a hospital
immediately.
Such a ham-fisted approach fails to consider the fact that, in many
cases, it may be safer and more conducive to the infant's health to
care for the infant where it was born rather than transporting it many
miles away to a hospital.
This bill assumes that Congress knows better, and it imposes a new
obligation on providers that, rather than saving lives, puts infants at
risk.
Perhaps, if this bill had gone through regular order, we could have
avoided this unfortunate situation. There has never been a committee
markup or a hearing on this bill, not in this Congress or in any
previous Congress.
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 when
a chorus of provider groups oppose this bill.
Sadly, rather than protecting infants, my Republican colleagues are
putting them at greater risk in the service of politics. Indeed, by
bringing this bill straight to the floor as one of the first measures
to be considered by the 118th Congress, Republicans and the most
extreme elements of the anti-abortion movement have signaled their
determination to enact a nationwide ban on abortion.
I cannot support H.R. 26 because it mandates a particular course of
treatment, the immediate transport to a hospital, which may not be
appropriate and may be medically dangerous in certain cases. In doing
so, it abandons the practice of considering the best medical interest
of infants and their mothers.
Republicans have made clear where they stand about a woman's right to
control her body. Make no mistake: This bill is another step in their
plan to criminalize abortion nationwide.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I point out this bill has passed multiple
times in previous Congresses, the exact same language, and it has
passed with bipartisan support.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of
Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the sponsor of the legislation who has worked
tirelessly on this good piece of legislation.
Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, a
champion for life, our chair of the Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan.
I rise today, Madam Speaker, in support of H.R. 26, the Born-Alive
Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I have championed this issue for
decades, and I have been blessed and honored to lead this legislation
since 2019.
I am so grateful to the co-leads of this bill, Representative Kat
Cammack and our Majority Leader, Steve Scalise; to the leadership of
this Congress; and especially to the thousands of champions of life
across the country for their tireless work and support of the most
vulnerable Americans, unborn and newborn infants.
Thanks to these efforts, after dozens of unanimous consent requests,
two discharge petitions, and countless hours of advocacy work, the
House will, at last, take action to ensure that every single baby born
in the United States receives lifesaving medical care at their most
vulnerable moment.
All children should be welcomed with joy and wonder, no matter the
circumstances of their birth. Yet, too many of these sweet little ones
are denied the medical care they need to survive and thrive simply
because they were unwanted.
This commonsense legislation will require healthcare providers to
administer the same level of care to the babies who survive abortions
that they
[[Page H180]]
would to any other child born at the same gestational age.
I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will, again,
join me in supporting the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,
as some did, as our chairman mentioned, when it passed the House in
both 2015 and 2018 with bipartisan support.
To that point, I want to be absolutely clear that this bill has
nothing to do with the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs to return
abortion to the States. Not a word of the born-alive act obstructs
States' ability to implement Dobbs as they see fit.
I strongly believe that States should control pro-life policymaking,
just as I support exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the
mother, but today, we are considering an entirely separate issue. We
are considering the protection of infants that have been delivered
alive after an attempted abortion. That is it, plain and simple.
I implore my Democratic colleagues to put aside politics and stand in
support of lifesaving care for these innocent newborns.
We must remember today that children are not the only victims of
born-alive abortions. Women, fathers, and whole families all suffer
deeply from the loss of a child. Our communities are weaker because
these bright young ones did not grow up to share their wisdom,
laughter, and ingenuity with all of us.
Just down the hall a little bit later this afternoon, we will meet
with extraordinary women who survived abortions. When they entered the
world, they were not greeted with the profound love and all that I felt
when I held my children and grandchildren for the first time. Instead,
they were left to die.
They are alive today because of courage and grace, mostly of nurses
who chose to act as they struggled for breath. Each of these women has
built a happy, healthy life, bringing light and joy to their friends
and families and enriching their communities. They inspire us all.
As a mother and grandmother, they affirm my belief in a culture of
life for children, born and unborn, and their mothers and families.
Every single newborn, regardless of the circumstances of their birth,
deserves to share the miracle of life and have lifesaving medical care.
We must act with compassion to protect these little ones and give
women a strong support system as they navigate the miracles and
challenges of motherhood. This bill will save real lives, and it will
give survivors a precious chance to build a future.
Madam Speaker, I urge every Member of the House to vote ``yes'' on
H.R. 26, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished minority leader of the House.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
New York for yielding and all my colleagues for their continued
leadership on this incredibly important issue.
The 118th Congress has begun, and the differences between our side of
the aisle and the other side of the aisle couldn't be any clearer.
Let me, of course, reiterate that, as Democrats, we look forward to
trying to find common ground whenever and wherever possible to solve
issues of consequence on behalf of the American people, but we will
oppose extremism whenever it rears its ugly head.
Democrats have made clear that we are going to continue to work on
issues like lowering costs, better-paying jobs, safer communities,
defending democracy, protecting the public interest, ensuring economic
opportunity in every single ZIP Code, and, yes, fighting for
reproductive freedom.
My Republican colleagues, you promised to come to Washington to fight
for the American people but have spent a lot of time fighting each
other on politics, power, and personality, not working on issues
related to the public interest. That is what the last few days have
indicated, an extreme MAGA Republican agenda.
Now that you are getting into substance, on Monday, you passed a bill
designed to allow the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected to
cheat on their taxes, subsidize the lifestyles of the rich and
shameless, benefit millionaires and billionaires, not working-class
families, not middle-class families, not low-income families, not
veterans, not everyday Americans, the wealthy, the well-off, and the
well-connected. That was on Monday.
Then, on Tuesday, you came to the floor and passed a select committee
on insurrection protection, a committee that is clearly designed, in
the words of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to
obstruct justice as part of your evident desire, as many of you have
said, to eventually defund the FBI. That was Tuesday.
Now, on Wednesday, you come to the floor with nothing on inflation,
nothing on quality-of-life issues for the American people, nothing even
on public safety. You come to the floor as part of your march to
criminalize abortion care, to impose a nationwide ban, to set into
motion government-mandated pregnancies.
That is the distinction for today. As Democrats, we believe in a
woman's freedom to make her own reproductive healthcare decisions,
period, full stop, decisions that should be between a woman, her
family, and her doctors, period, full stop.
We believe in Roe v. Wade. Do you wonder about our position? That is
it. The Women's Health Protection Act, that is it. Freedom to make your
own reproductive healthcare decisions, that is it. As compared to a
clear effort--that is what this bill is about today, a march toward
criminalizing abortion care, a nationwide ban, government-mandated
pregnancies, part of an extreme MAGA Republican agenda.
{time} 1400
So, yes, we continue to extend our hand of partnership if you truly
want to work on quality-of-life issues, but we haven't seen it. We
haven't seen it on Monday, we haven't seen it on Tuesday, and we are
not seeing it today.
Madam Speaker, we oppose this bill. We oppose an extreme MAGA-
Republican agenda. Let's get back to the business of the American
people.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I would point out, the minority leader
said their position is Roe v. Wade. Their position is real simple and
it is real radical. Their position is you should be able to take the
life of an unborn child right up until their birthday, and then as
Governor Northam has said, even after their birthday. That is what this
bill seeks to stop and to make sure that it doesn't happen.
That is as radical as you can get, taking the life of unborn children
right up to their birth day. And then, as Governor Northam pointed out,
even after that. We want to make sure that ``even after that'' part
never happens because we believe life is precious and life is sacred.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Mrs. Cammack), one of the cosponsors of this legislation.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
26, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This bill does
exactly what the title says, which in this town is a novel concept.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Ann Wagner, for her tireless
efforts. I thank our majority leader, Steve Scalise, for his efforts
on this issue. And, of course, I thank Chairman Jim Jordan of the
Judiciary Committee for being such an advocate for the pro-life
community.
Today, we are not talking about abortion. We are talking about
children. We are talking about children who have been born and are
fighting to survive despite an abortion attempt. In some cases when a
woman receives a late-term abortion, the baby can be born alive
following the procedure.
Federal law currently recognizes these babies as persons but fails to
outline any requirements of care after the infant is born alive. H.R.
26 would rectify this by requiring healthcare practitioners to treat
any child born alive after an abortion as they would any infant and
requires that the infant be immediately treated with lifesaving care
and transported to a hospital. I honestly do not understand what is so
controversial about that.
Madam Speaker, this bill establishes criminal penalties for any
healthcare practitioner or abortion clinic employee who fails to comply
with the requirements established by this bill, because let's face it,
no one can deny that
[[Page H181]]
a child who survives an abortion attempt, who is outside the womb,
breathing, and struggling for life, despite all attempts to end it,
doesn't deserve equal protection under the law. Under our law, murder
is illegal. That shouldn't be a controversial position.
Eight babies in Florida alone, just last year, eight babies were
reported to have been born alive during an abortion attempt. The
stories are horrific. One that sticks out in particular was an NBC
report in 2006. They told the story of a 23-week-old baby boy that was
born alive at an abortion clinic in Hialeah, Florida. When he began
breathing and moving, the abortion clinic owner, Belkis Gonzalez,
reportedly cut the umbilical cord and zipped him into a biohazard bag
where he then died. It is hard to read those words.
But as has been stated here on this floor in this Chamber, this isn't
about pro-life versus pro-choice. This is about protecting those most
vulnerable. It is about who we are as a society, who we are as a
people, and who we are as Americans.
I hope that both sides of this Chamber can agree that accountability
is a good thing. Protecting these children is a good thing. It is time
to put the party politics aside and the talking points aside and give
these children, wanted or unwanted, a fighting chance, a chance that
they all deserve.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to direct their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, it is a crime now to kill a
child born alive. In fact, in May of 2013, a Philadelphia man was
convicted of first degree murder in the killing of three infants. He is
now serving life without parole.
Either my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are unaware of
this already existing crime with a penalty of life without parole, or
this is another extreme political stunt.
Let me be clear: Abortion care is healthcare, and that has been true
for a very long time. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
not interested in medical truths. No. Instead, they are interested in
scaring people, outlawing all abortions and criminalizing anyone they
can.
Politicians have no business making unsound medical decisions. We are
legislators, not doctors.
In the unfortunate case when a child is born with fatal disabilities,
this legislation will deny parents a say in how their child spends the
final minutes, hours, or days of his or her life, whether hooked up to
a medical device or in the arms of their parents.
Expectant parents have enough worries. They should not have to worry
about extreme politicians in their doctor's office or hospital thinking
they somehow know better.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 26.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Madam Speaker, I was a corpsman, that is a combat
medic, in the Navy SEAL teams for over 20 years, and I would like to
give you a different perspective.
If I were to encounter an enemy combatant on the battlefield who was
wounded, which I have, I was obligated by international law to render
medical care to that enemy combatant to the best of my ability, up to
and including to the detriment of my own troops, or I would be subject
to prosecution.
I find it absurd, I find it unconscionable that this would be a
matter of discussion in this body that we would not render medical aid
to the most innocent amongst us, an unborn child that is born alive
after the most traumatic circumstances possible.
Madam Speaker, I would implore my Democratic colleagues to remember
that this is not about a woman's access to abortion. This is about the
sanctity of life and the basic dignity of a human child.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this grotesque
attempt to politicize abortion care and criminalize doctors.
Politicians should not be in the business of mandating that women
carry dangerous or unwanted pregnancies to term. They should stay out
of the doctor's office when Americans are exercising their fundamental
right to decide when or if to have children.
But rightwing extremists have made it their first order of business
in this new Congress to attack abortion rights and spread
disinformation.
This bill is deliberately misleading. It is harmful to both people
facing pregnancy complications and to the doctors who provide their
care. If passed, it would cause more maternal deaths in this country,
which are already a national shame.
Congress has a responsibility to legislate honestly, and this bill is
not honest. The American people deserve better than having Congress
waste time on political stunts, pretending to fix problems that do not
exist.
Americans don't want MAGA extremists to criminalize women's
healthcare, and they don't want politicians in their doctor's offices.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Burchett), my friend.
Mr. BURCHETT. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend, Chairman Jordan,
yielding to me. I thank my friend, Representative Ann Wagner, for
introducing this important bill again--no better person than a mama and
a grandmama--and she does a good job at both of those.
Madam Speaker, babies deserve a chance to live. They deserve a chance
at life no matter their age or their circumstance. The Constitution
says that people have a right to life. The science says babies are
people.
The Democrats have been pushing, trust the science. Follow the
science. Trust the science. Follow the science, the last 2 years. Yet,
we are denying the science, Madam Speaker.
When I was a little boy, I was asking my mama--we were talking about
abortion and we were talking about babies being born that were maybe
disabled or had some other anomaly, and I said: Mama, what would we do
if one of those babies was born and I was the father of one of those
little babies?
And she said: Honey, we would love that baby just a little more.
Madam Speaker, we need to love those babies just a little more and
not murder them.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the latest
attempt by House Republicans to control women's reproductive freedom, a
ruse to ban safe and legal abortions in this country. This legislation
purports to address something that does not happen.
The hypotheticals some of my colleagues described are not based in
fact. Their arguments are untrue and do not represent how medicine
actually works. Their suggestions are not only false, but they are
callous.
The truth is abortions that occur after 3 months of pregnancy account
for only 1 percent of all abortions, and they occur almost exclusively
because a woman's life is at risk or her pregnancy is not viable. We
should not be in the business of enacting laws that make these
difficult and painful situations worse.
What is not hypothetical is the real pain and suffering that
politicians across this country are imposing as they continue to chip
away at what should be an essential right.
A woman must have the right to make health decisions that are in the
best of interest of themselves, their family, and their circumstances.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this sham piece of
legislation.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. It
sounds really good to call him Mr. Chairman. He is going to do a great
job for us and the American people, more importantly.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 26, the Born-Alive
Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
Since my first year in office, I have shown a strong commitment to
promoting a culture of life. The bill before
[[Page H182]]
us requires practitioners who are present for an attempted abortion,
resulting in a live birth, to exercise the same degree of care that
would be offered to any other child born of that gestational age. After
those efforts, the healthcare workers must admit the child to a
hospital.
This bill also gives mothers a civil cause of action and protection
from any prosecution, recognizing that women are the second victims of
abortion and attempted abortions.
Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this important
piece of legislation because, surely, we can all agree that a child
born alive has a right to live.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I would say: Here we go again. For
those of us who have served in the United States Congress, this is:
Here we go again.
This is legislation that is attempting to be wrapped in mercy that is
without mercy. First of all, it is without fact. It is extremely
important to know that if you were here in the United States Congress
you know the history because we have already passed the bipartisan
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which reiterates the fact that it is
illegal to interfere with a newborn. They are protected from both
intentional harm by healthcare providers and harm from medical
negligence--plain and simple, period at the end of the sentence.
Why are we here today?
We are here today for news clips. We are here today for quotes and
condemnation of the other side of the aisle that wants to be reckless
with the life of a child.
{time} 1415
I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that those of us who have given
birth and those of us who have lost in the birth process are extreme
lovers of those wonderful opportunities of life.
I refuse and reject condemnation of my personal self because I
believe these decisions are with a God--the woman's God and the
families' God--her faith, doctors, and, of course, the persons who are
a part of the medical profession.
I have article after article that talks about the tragedy of partial-
birth abortion, which is the name used more than a decade ago. They
always find creative names to be able to be criminalized.
We heard from a member of the Rules Committee who said: How dare you
grab up a child, put them in an ambulance, and take them hundreds of
miles away from their family?
Or maybe the family who found out that the multiple abnormalities of
their child would not allow them to live, and they had waited 8 years
for this wonderful baby. The decisions, unfortunately, of neither life
nor death come easily for these children. There is a painful existence
marked by periods of breathing cessation and seizures when they are
born.
Because my OB was unable to get a good image of the brain until the
13th week, we understand that these are personal decisions. We
understand that these are painful decisions.
So I stand with those families, I refuse to condemn those families,
and I refuse to be merciless. I am giving mercy in voting against this
legislation. I am voting against it now.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 26, the BornAlive
Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would establish requirements
for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the
case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
In the first week of the 118th Congress, extreme MAGA Republicans are
launching attacks on reproductive freedom, intruding on medical
decision-making, and keeping their promise to criminalize abortion
nationwide with no exceptions.
H.R. 26 is a clear attack on health care providers and attempts to
evoke power over the care that they provide to patients.
When the Senate attempted to pass this bill in 2019, 17 medical and
public health organizations sent a letter in strong opposition to the
bill stating that it represented ``a dangerous government intrusion
into private health care decisions''.
This bill undermines medical professionals' training and critical
judgment, minimizing their ability to determine the best medical
treatment for their patients.
Medical professionals abide by a Code of Ethics during their career.
For lawmakers to undermine the work of medical professionals and
attempt to prosecute them for doing what is right for their patients is
inappropriate and misdirected.
This bill is a direct way to compromise the health and safety of
patients.
A 2015 study published by the New England Journal of Medicine states
that a baby's viability is the determining factor in the care that they
receive.
The study states that ``active intervention for infants born before
22 weeks gestation is generally not recommended, whereas the approach
for infants born at or after 22 weeks of gestation varies.''
Seeing that there are already standards in place to determine level
of care, why should we as lawmakers intervene to override what medical
professionals agree is the most appropriate medical treatment warranted
by the circumstances.
To suggest that medical professionals would not provide equal and
adequate medical attention to all patients is thoughtless, insulting,
and uncivil.
For a party that advocated for minimal federal government
interference and big government, Republicans are attempting to increase
the federal government's jurisdiction over local governments.
Why should we as lawmakers seek to prosecute medical professionals
that are simply doing their job?
This bill would force medical professionals to worry about criminal
penalties and legislative interpretation when the appropriate medical
care is already laid out.
This bill would remove a medical professional's ability to make the
medically sound decision for their patient without government
interference and the threat of repercussions.
This bill endangers infants because it puts Republican wishes ahead
of appropriate medical care.
H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, is dangerous
to both medical professionals and patients. Medical professionals would
be placed under unnecessary scrutiny, when legislation and protocols
are already in place for this situation.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill that would
establish requirements for the degree of care a health care
practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following
an abortion or attempted abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement written by Audrey
Eisen titled: ``How The Abortion Ban Debate Became My Story.''
[From ACLU, Feb. 2, 2009]
How the Abortion Ban Debate Became My Story
(By Audrey Eisen)
I never thought that so-called ``partial-birth abortion''
would ever have anything to do with me. Why would it? I'm 34
years old and I desperately want children. My husband and I
have been together for eight years, married for four, and
trying to have a baby for two. Abortion was not something I
thought much about.
But earlier this year, all that changed.
In November of 2002, after fighting infertility and
experiencing the sadness of a miscarriage in July, we were
thrilled to find ourselves pregnant again. While still
apprehensive, we consciously decided to be excited--another
loss would hurt just the same, regardless of whether or not
we had allowed ourselves to be happy.
In the first few months, my endocrinologist performed
regular ultrasounds to ensure that the embryo was developing
normally. It was such a treat to be able to see our child
growing. I kept the pictures and my thoughts in a pregnancy
journal.
When it became evident that we were going to make it
through the first trimester, my endocrinologist referred me
to an obstetrician (OB). At my first appointment, the nurse
put a fetal heart monitor on my belly and, much to our
amazement, from a seemingly great distance, we heard the
characteristic ``whoosh'' of our child's heartbeat. We were
on top of the world thinking that, for sure, this one was
going to make it.
At 13 weeks, however, all this changed abruptly when,
during a routine ultrasound exam, my OB discovered our child
had
[[Page H183]]
polydactyly (more than the normal number of digits). While at
first we thought it was just the hands, we later learned that
the feet were affected as well. At the time, my husband and I
thought it was no big deal--we had both known people with an
extra finger, and we were prepared to help our child live
with the condition. However, we soon found out that an extra
toe or finger were the least of our concerns: polydactyly is
associated with over 100 syndromes, most commonly Trisomy 13.
Trisomy 13 is characterized by multiple abnormalities, many
of which are not compatible with life beyond a couple of
months. Most fetuses with Trisomy 13 die in utero; of those
who make it to birth, almost half do not survive past the
first month; roughly three-quarters die within 6 months.
Long-term survival is one year. Unfortunately, neither life
nor death come easily for these children--theirs is a painful
existence marked by periods of breathing cessation and
seizures. Because my OB was unable to get a good image of the
brain during the 13th week ultrasound, we returned at 15
weeks.
The first thing my OB examined during this visit was the
fetal brain. He didn't say a word. I could tell he was
holding something back and asked that he tell me what he saw.
He said, ``It is not normal.'' The rest of the scan was a
blur as tears ran down my cheeks and those of my mother and
husband, who had accompanied me to the doctor's office that
day. Following the scan, the doctor left us alone to compose
ourselves. I cried with my whole body, from the depths of my
soul.
Shortly thereafter, I had other tests. These confirmed that
our baby had Trisomy 13.
At this point we discussed our options with a genetic
counselor. My husband and I both felt strongly that we did
not want our child to suffer; we decided to terminate the
pregnancy as soon as possible. I had an abortion on the first
day of my 16th week of pregnancy.
Soon after I had the procedure, I began to see news stories
about a new federal ``partial birth abortion'' ban. Like many
Americans, following the press on this issue over the past
several years, I had thought, ``My God, this must be
something horrible.'' But as I mourned the loss of my much-
desired pregnancy, I came to realize that if such legislation
passed, the right to safe second-trimester abortions like the
one I had might not remain available to those women who come
after me. While proponents of this ban claim that it is aimed
at one procedure performed late in pregnancy, the reality is
that it would prohibit the safest and most common procedures
used in the second trimester, well before fetal viability.
Without access to this care, I don't know how women will
endure if after routine prenatal testing they discover, as we
did, that their fetuses suffer from grave conditions
incompatible with life; I don't know how I would have
endured.
Two weeks following my abortion, we received a letter from
the genetic counselor. Our child had numerous abnormalities:
the brain, heart, and other internal organs were not
developing properly. Our child was also a girl and we miss
her very much. In our case, abortion was the only humane
choice. This choice must be preserved for the sake of all
women and their families. The American public needs to
understand the consequences of this ban and that the human
face of so-called ``partial-birth abortion,'' my face, could
be their own.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 26.
I thank my colleague, the chair of the Judiciary Committee from Ohio,
for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, as a mother, a doctor, a former nurse, and a former
director of Iowa's Department of Public Health, I know firsthand the
preciousness of life and the importance of prenatal care and the
tragedies that ensue when proper care isn't provided. In fact, the
first healthy baby I delivered as a doctor was to a young teenager who
put the baby up for adoption.
Our Nation promises three things: life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. There is no clause in the Constitution to exempt newborns
who survive an abortion procedure from these rights. It is not only
unreasonable, but it is inhuman to deny care to babies who were born
alive.
Regardless of maternal intent, what could be more extreme than
denying care to an infant born alive?
My colleague on the other side of the aisle from New York is correct.
It is infanticide.
H.R. 26 is legislation that should receive wide support from both
sides of the aisle. It is unconscionable to think that some Members
will choose to vote against this bill which will ensure infants receive
lifesaving care simply because of partisan politics. This legislation
isn't about abortions but saving the lives of living and breathing
innocent newborns.
Many States, including Iowa, have put safe haven laws in place to
allow parents to leave their infants at hospitals or care facilities
without fear of being prosecuted. We already have laws in place to
protect these infants.
Why should infants who survive an abortion be treated any
differently?
Like all other medical professionals, I took the Hippocratic oath
which promises that I will do no harm. This legislation reaffirms the
Hippocratic oath and ensures that doctors across the United States are
providing the same standard of medical care to all infants regardless
of the circumstance of their birth.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand in support of
life by voting for H.R. 26.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).
Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. My, my, my. Here we go again.
Republicans are racing full steam ahead to criminalize abortion
nationwide.
Madam Speaker, the American people want women--not politicians--to
make their own healthcare decisions, including those about abortion.
So as to this misleading and offensively named bill, let's vote it
down. Let's say no to putting women's lives in danger, no to denying
patients needing lifesaving care, and no to putting healthcare
providers in prison for doing their job.
Madam Speaker, because I love my grandchildren, I reject the extreme
Republican agenda, and I am standing here today with the Democrats for
people to have the freedom to make their own personal decisions about
their health, their life, and their future.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding. Madam Speaker, I especially thank the gentlewoman from
Missouri, Ann Wagner, for leading this effort for so many years.
I am so proud to rise in support of this bill that is about human
dignity; and, frankly, it is about common sense. The idea, Madam
Speaker, that if a baby is born alive outside the womb that that baby
in America could be killed and it be called abortion and not murder
defies logic. It defies humanity.
Over the years Kat Cammack has had a discharge petition to bring this
bill to the floor. So many others all across the country have asked
Congress to address this issue, and the first thing that people express
is shock.
They say: Wait a minute. If a baby is born outside the womb alive,
how could you then kill that baby and that be legal? How is that not
already murder?
I questioned how it wasn't myself, and yet in a number of States it
is legal, and it is happening today.
This is America. Madam Speaker, you see this in countries like China
and North Korea. There aren't many countries in the world that allow
this practice. The United States should not be one of those countries.
This is inhumane. This transcends the abortion debate. Before the
Dobbs decision, this bill still would have been constitutional to pass
because we are not talking about 20 weeks, we are talking about the
baby born alive outside the womb.
Yet, in America there are some States that allow that baby to be
killed and called abortion.
You can call it whatever you want, Madam Speaker. It should be
murder. It shouldn't be allowed, and this bill takes care of that.
Everybody should vote for this bill.
When you talk to people who identify as pro-choice, so many of them
are shocked that this is a legal process. Some, obviously, still want
it to continue, but we shouldn't. We should be better than that as a
country.
There is an amazing group called the Abortion Survivors Network. Ann
Wagner and I and so many of us have surely met with some of these
incredible people.
If you want to talk about a walking miracle, Madam Speaker, these are
people alive today in their twenties, thirties, and forties living
incredible lives who were the result of an abortion that wasn't
successful. They lived through it. Think of the special plan God has
for them that they survived an abortion, and they are alive today. They
are incredible people. Everybody in this country should reach out and
go meet them. It is a group, and you can look them up.
[[Page H184]]
Their stories are incredible.
Why should they be denied life?
We are a country of laws. We are a country of great rights. Of our
inalienable rights--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--the
first among those is life. Very few countries in the world allow this
to happen to someone if they are born alive.
So while they are shocked when people find out that it is legal, we
are the United States Congress, we can actually do something about it.
Thank God we have people who are willing to stand up for those
babies. I am not even talking about inside the womb. They are outside
the womb born alive. If someone takes their life after they are born
alive outside the womb, that should be murder.
We should be protecting those young babies. That is what this bill
does. It is a bill we should all be proud to support. It is a list that
the United States should want to take itself off of. We shouldn't want
to be associated with the very few countries that allow this barbaric
process to happen.
Let's pass this bill. Let's become an even more perfect Union.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, Mr. Scalise and every other Republican who has spoken
on this bill is simply wrong on the facts. It is illegal and always has
been illegal in every State and then Federal law to kill an infant born
alive. It is illegal and always has been illegal not to provide that
infant with appropriate medical care.
Just to make sure that no one had any doubts of that, we passed the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act with bipartisan support in 2002.
The problem with this bill is not that it provides any new
protections for infants. The problem with this bill is that it
endangers some infants by stating that that infant must immediately be
brought to the hospital where, depending on the circumstances, that may
be the right thing to do for the health and survival of that infant or
it may not.
That is the problem with this bill.
It directs and mandates a certain medical care which may not be
appropriate, and which may even endanger the life of an infant in
certain circumstances. That is why we oppose this bill. It is not
because we don't think that babies born alive must be saved, but
because we do think that babies born alive must be saved.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, this bill is extremist, dangerous, and
unnecessary.
It is extremist because it would criminalize doctors with up to 5
years in prison and put them in fear of providing lifesaving, medically
necessary procedures to those who are pregnant.
It is dangerous because the bill has no exceptions to protect the
health of the patient and no exceptions in cases where there is a
serious fetal anomaly.
It is unnecessary because, as Mr. Nadler said, it is already a crime
to kill a baby born alive.
Many of my Republican colleagues talk about keeping Big Government
out of people's lives. But when it comes to the hardest and most
intimate decision--decisions that should be made between patients and
their healthcare providers--these same colleagues think the government
knows better.
Republicans in Congress and conservative extremists on the Supreme
Court are waging a war on reproductive healthcare, a war on bodily
autonomy, and a war on the medical community and the doctor-patient
relationship.
I will continue to stand up against these assaults on reproductive
freedom and against extremist, dangerous, unnecessary, and misguided
policies like this bill.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).
Mrs. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 26 and to
its very name because it is not about what House Republicans claim it
is about, because what they claim it is about isn't a thing.
What this bill is about is an assault on the health, rights,
equality, and dignity of American women and the people who provide
their reproductive healthcare.
It is an assault we have seen in my home State of Texas where women
having miscarriages are being turned away from the hospitals and told
to come back when they are closer to dying, where doctors fear, and are
told, that they cannot meet the standard of care for their patients.
Providers and patients are afraid of misleading bills like this one
criminalizing healthcare.
But, of course, that is the point, isn't it?
I stand here today, and I will stand here every day, to oppose this
bill and others like it, to talk about the real healthcare crisis
facing women today, and to urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu.)
Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, H.R. 26 would rob families of the ability to
make difficult and complicated medical decisions in some of the most
heartbreaking circumstances imaginable. It is a mean-spirited solution
in search of a problem.
If the majority is interested in caring for newborns, I invite them
to support Democrats' efforts to provide paid family leave to every new
parent. Republicans are welcome to join our efforts to expand the child
tax credit to families struggling with paying the bills. And we would
be thrilled to have bipartisan support in this Chamber to make
childcare affordable everywhere.
Alternatively, House Republicans have brought up a bill designed to
intimidate doctors and perpetuate disinformation about how abortion
care actually works.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead
vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit which would bring up my bill,
the Women's Health Protection Act, legislation that would create a
Federal right to abortion care free from medically unnecessary
restrictions in all 50 States.
{time} 1430
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding.
As I have said before and will continue to say, I am pro-life, pro-
family, and pro-child. I am very proud to see that one of the very
first pieces of legislation that comes before this Congress and the new
majority is protecting the vulnerable. That is something I have always
stood up for since my first time here in Congress.
It seems like there is some confusion, especially on the other side
of the aisle, Madam Speaker, about what this legislation is about. This
legislation is very simple. It simply states and ensures that babies
who survive an abortion receive care and protection and that they are
not discarded because someone else had intended to end their lives. It
prohibits healthcare practitioners from turning a blind eye to abortion
survivors.
No matter the intent of what you believe about life, failure to care
for an unborn child is infanticide, and the law must be enforced.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to remember that the last time we
voted on this bill, there was bipartisan support, and I ask again for
support of this commonsense, lifesaving legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, born alive has nothing to do with
abortion. Providers are already required, by law, to provide
appropriate medical care. Infanticide is murder.
What we heard earlier is just not true. It is a lie that should not
be repeated.
As our chairman has said, not only is it illegal to not care for a
born infant, but the law that you have provided on the Republican side
actually can create more harm. It requires immediately taking a
struggling baby to a hospital. That hospital could be hours away and
[[Page H185]]
could be detrimental to the life of that baby.
This is nothing more than a part of the effort to make abortion
illegal nationally in this country. I object, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Mrs. Houchin) for her first speech on the House floor.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Born-
Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
From New Albany to Salem to Madison, Hoosiers across southern Indiana
feel as I do, that every life is precious and all lives deserve the
dignity and respect of lifesaving care. That is why I am proud to stand
alongside my colleagues in support of this pro-life bill.
This legislation would ensure that children who are born alive
despite an attempted abortion are given the same medical care and help
as any other newborn infant. We know the majority of Americans agree on
this issue, that saving the lives of babies who survive a botched
abortion is not just humane, but it is necessary and foundational to
our constitutional right to life. It is why I am an original cosponsor
on this important bill to support mothers and their children. I stand
with Hoosiers on behalf of these vulnerable infants.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, Democrats support the radical position
of abortion on demand up until birth, funded by the taxpayers, and they
would even deny care to an innocent child that miraculously survives a
botched abortion.
This is a commonsense support of life. Madam Speaker, I urge the rest
of my colleagues to stand with us in defending life. On this issue, we
should all agree.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Goldman).
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about
freedom, specifically, individual freedom, a core American value, a
value that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have for years
co-opted, weaponized, and distorted.
I simply do not understand how my Republican colleagues can demand
the individual freedom to spread a deadly disease to other people by
not getting vaccinated or wearing masks yet have the gall to deny the
individual freedom to make decisions about one's own body that has no
impact on anyone else.
How can it be that autonomy to wear a mask or not is of greater
importance than the autonomy over whether to have a baby or not?
Let me say it plainly: We cannot talk about preserving our individual
freedoms while simultaneously ripping away a fundamental freedom for
women in this country. Control over one's reproductive health is a
human right.
We are in the first week of Congress, and what are we focused on?
Is it to fight inflation? No.
To create jobs for Americans? No.
To protect children from gun violence? No.
It is to continue the assault on our autonomy, on women's autonomy.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) a longtime champion of the pro-life cause.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for
yielding, and I thank Ann Wagner for authoring this important
legislation.
Madam Speaker, in a Florida abortion clinic, Sycloria Williams
delivered a live baby girl at 23 weeks. The clinic owner took the baby,
who was gasping for air, cut her umbilical cord, threw her into a
biohazard bag, and put the bag in the trash.
Heartbroken, Ms. Williams later had a funeral for her baby girl, who
she named Shanice. CNN has reported since that Ms. Williams suffers
PTSD from that ordeal.
Madam Speaker, why are these live births from abortion little known?
Dr. Willard Cates, former head of the Centers for Disease Control's
abortion surveillance unit, said several years ago 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 than
a problem to be solved. ``It is like turning yourself in to the IRS for
an audit,'' he went on. ``What is there to gain? The tendency is not to
report because there are only negative incentives.''
Madam Speaker, Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, one of the
few who got caught--and it was under a State law, not Federal, and many
States don't have such laws--was convicted of murder for killing
children who were born alive after attempted abortions.
The grand jury report described it in this way: ``Gosnell had a
simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: He killed them.
He didn't call it that. He called it `ensuring fetal demise.' The way
he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the
baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that `snipping.'''
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act seeks to end or at
least mitigate this egregious child abuse by requiring that a
healthcare provider must exercise the same degree of professional
skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life of that child as they
would a child of similar age.
The bill empowers the woman upon whom the abortion is performed to
obtain appropriate civil relief. I am sure had it been available then,
Ms. Williams would have done that, as well.
Madam Speaker, this is humane, pro-child, human rights legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 26.
H.R. 26 is presented within the context of what happened last year
when the Supreme Court stripped millions of women in our country of
their status and free right for equal access to reproductive freedom.
As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to correct this
wrong and bring back reproductive freedom for women. This bill is not
about the safety of children. This is more of the same. This is about
policing the bodies of women.
A bunch of middle-aged guys in Brooks Brothers' suits stand here
today and try to tell women what to do with their bodies. That is what
this is about. This is not about the safety of children. That is
already illegal.
Madam Speaker, I stand here to oppose H.R. 26. There are 64 million
women across America of reproductive age. Many of them live in States
that are beating up on their rights to reproductive freedom.
Madam Speaker, I stand here in opposition to H.R. 26 and ask my
colleagues also to vote against it.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Good), my friend.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, once again, we have to say: How
did we get to where we are today? How did we get to where we have to
have a debate to defend life that survives the heinous practice of
abortion?
In the infamous words of the Governor of my very State, the
Commonwealth of Virginia, just a few years ago, if a baby survives an
abortion attempt, the mother and the doctor would have a conversation
while they kept the baby comfortable to decide what to do with it. He
said that on air in a radio broadcast.
I realize that the other side may not recognize the science of
conception. I realize that the other side may not share the premium or
the value of innocent life in the womb that most Americans have. The
party of death that believes in abortion up until the moment of birth
at any time for any reason--today we find ourselves even having to
defend and protect life, a baby that survives an abortion attempt.
If it were not so, if it were not true, then this bill should pass
unanimously. I fear that will not be the case for this same party will
not even vote later today against and condemn the violence at pregnancy
centers across the country.
Madam Speaker, I encourage everyone to support this bill and protect
all life.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 26.
We didn't hop in a time machine back to the 1970s. It is 2023, and we
all know what this is about. It is not about the protection of newborn
children. It is about control. It is about Republicans' continued
desire to control
[[Page H186]]
women, take away their freedoms, limit their bodily autonomy, plunge
poor women deeper into poverty, and further marginalize those already
not seen.
It is about intimidating, silencing, and criminalizing doctors. It is
about the nationwide abortion ban that Republicans have been itching to
enact since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, bans that the American
people have said loudly and clearly that they do not want.
We cannot continue to let the extreme Republican Party attack and
erode the rights of women across this country. We have a responsibility
to put an end to politicians inserting themselves into the doctors'
offices and uteruses of women across this country.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
Once again, House Republicans are eager to stand for the most
vulnerable among us, the unborn. We are the party of life, and we are
proud of it.
There is no difference between an infant born alive after a failed
abortion and an infant born into the arms of loving parents. Those two
babies deserve to be treated with the same level of excellent medical
care.
Yet, abortionists have demonstrated a lack of interest in preserving
the lives of babies who enter the world alive and supposedly under
their care.
We know what happens in these clinics. By way of just one example,
lifenews.com reports that an abortion provider in Minnesota was
recently asked by a woman 22 weeks pregnant and considering an abortion
what that provider would do if her baby were taken out while his heart
was still beating. The abortion provider responded: ``We don't tell
women this . . . but if we was to proceed with the abortion and the
baby was to come out still alive . . . most likely, we will break the
baby's neck.''
That is chilling and barbaric, but our Democratic colleagues will not
admit that. They will vote against it today. Watch the board. It will
be shocking, and it will be true.
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would make it a
Federal crime for abortionists to kill or fail to provide care to
babies who survive abortions.
Madam Speaker, I encourage all of our colleagues to support this
critical legislation. As was said, it should pass unanimously, but it
won't.
{time} 1445
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of parental and
maternal rights and in opposition to H.R. 26.
I am the first mother in history to represent west Michigan in
Congress. This matter is deeply personal to me. I recently shared
publicly about my own experience navigating a complex miscarriage and
the loss of my daughter. As a pro-choice Christian who chose life, this
issue is so personal to me. My faith informs my actions, but it doesn't
dictate the policy of an entire nation.
Further, when I read the Scripture, I am guided by passages like
Jeremiah 1:5, which states: I knew you before I formed you, and I
placed you in your mother's womb. It doesn't say the government's womb
or the Speaker's womb, it says the mother's womb.
I believe life is precious, but I reject the idea that if I embrace
the sanctity of life, I also must be forced to invite the Federal
Government in to regulate it. We must protect families from unnecessary
government intrusion into the most sacred and personal decisions of our
lives and our children's lives.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
All life is sacred. Defending innocent lives should not be a policy
issue.
This legislation protects babies who are not only born but who are
then left without care from an attempted abortion. A baby who survives
an abortion should receive the same medical attention that any other
premature baby would.
These precious souls are given another chance at life. It is
unacceptable that there are no criminal charges for those who want to
take their life away. The people who allow babies to be killed after
birth must be fully prosecuted.
Let's be clear: Killing a baby who is born alive, regardless of an
attempted abortion, is murder.
The previous Democrat-controlled House has refused to vote on this
bill. Today, a Republican-led majority keeps our commitment to America
by voting on legislation that upholds the sanctity of life.
I urge the passage of this bill on the House floor.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding. Just a couple of minutes ago we heard a speaker on the other
side of the aisle criticize Republicans saying we don't support wearing
masks, and wearing masks affects others; however, having an abortion
affects only a woman.
So what is an abortion? What is an abortion?
It is the intentional taking of the life of an unborn child.
How in the world can you say that an abortion does not affect anyone
except the woman?
That is the core of the difference between those of us who support
unborn children and born children.
Those who support abortions ignore the fact that another life is
involved. That is the core of the issue. There are two lives involved
here, the mother and the unborn baby. We must recognize that.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
26 and urge my colleagues to instead support my motion to recommit to
take up and pass Representative Judy Chu's Women's Health Protection
Act that will restore the protections that we had under Roe v. Wade.
If there is one thing this last election showed us it is that the
American people believe strongly that every woman in this country
should have the ability to make her own healthcare decisions, including
abortion.
Sadly, however, if there is one thing this past week has shown us, it
is that the House Republicans just don't care at all about that.
They don't care that 61 percent of the American people strongly
support a woman's access to abortion care.
They don't care that just 2 months ago a record number of Americans
showed up at polling locations across the country to overwhelmingly
reject the GOP's plan to criminalize abortion care.
They don't care that in every State where abortion restrictions were
on the ballot they were rejected overwhelmingly--in places like Kansas.
They don't care that Americans think that people, not politicians,
should be making these decisions.
Apparently, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think they
know how abortion decisions should be made, not a woman and her doctor.
So instead of taking heed of the will of the American people, my
Republican colleagues are intending to do just the opposite.
The legislation before us today is part of a concerted effort to
fast-track this extreme agenda of anti-choice legislation. It creates
new criminal penalties for healthcare providers that fail to provide
specific standards of care--that the politicians on the other side of
the aisle will enact--after an attempted abortion.
It doesn't really protect newborn children in any way. Why?
Because if a child is born it is already illegal to kill it--as it
should be. Unlike what the majority leader said, it is already illegal
in every single State in this country. It is illegal to kill people in
this country.
Just in case anybody was confused about this, as Chairman Nadler
said, in 2002 Congress passed the Born-Alive
[[Page H187]]
Infants Protection Act, and all of us, including me, the co-chair of
the Pro-Choice Caucus voted for it because clearly if the baby is born,
we shouldn't kill it. Duh.
So what does this bill do? What it does, as I said, it creates
criminal penalties for healthcare providers that don't do what the
Republicans think they should do, and it creates new, complicated
standards that will make it harder for healthcare professionals to do
their jobs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Houchin). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. DeGETTE. What it does is it hopes to deter doctors from providing
abortion care in the first place, which is exactly what we saw after
the Dobbs decision. This is not what the American people signed up for.
I strongly urge my colleagues to reject these extreme measures and
instead support my motion to recommit to take up and pass the Women's
Health Protection Act to ensure that everybody in this country, no
matter where they live, has the access to the reproductive care they
need.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to add the text of this
amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
the great State of Virginia (Mr. Cline).
Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.
I am a little bit confused, though, because it wasn't before 2002
when our previous Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Governor
Ralph Northam, said on a radio show that if a baby was born alive that
the baby would be made comfortable, that then a conversation would
ensue between the doctor and the mother about whether or not and how to
treat that baby; essentially saying, if you want to go ahead and kill
your baby after it is born, go right ahead.
That type of attitude persists, continues. If there are laws that
exist to prevent it--the Governor was not aware of them, I am not aware
of them--that would apply in that situation.
That is why this legislation is so important, because contrary to
House Democrats and the Biden administration, the American people
overwhelmingly believe that babies who are born alive should be
protected, that a baby born alive, even after an attempted abortion,
should be afforded the same constitutional protections as every other
American.
I am proud to support the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection
Act, which would require appropriate medical care for children who
survive abortion procedures. It imposes strong criminal penalties for
the failure to provide such care.
If a doctor like our former Governor, Dr. Northam, was engaging in
the activities that he spoke about on that radio show, he would be
subject to those same criminal penalties.
Protecting living and breathing babies outside the womb should not be
a partisan issue, it should be one around which we all should unite.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I will 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.
It has always been against the law to intentionally kill or harm a
newborn infant, whatever the circumstances of its birth. It has always
been against the law not to afford such an infant appropriate medical
care. The bill does nothing new to protect infants.
The bill, however, is not harmless. Rather, if enacted, it could
place the lives and health of newborn infants at risk. The bill
directly interferes with a doctor's medical judgment and dictates a
medical standard of care, namely, immediate transport to a hospital,
that may not be appropriate in the particular circumstances.
That is why a broad coalition of healthcare provider groups, joined
by a wide range of additional health, civil rights, and women's rights
groups, strongly opposes this bill.
We should listen to these healthcare professionals. We should support
keeping babies alive, which is what the Republicans say they want to
do, but yet, they have this legislation that would endanger babies'
lives by dictating a standard of care that may not be appropriate in
certain situations. We should listen to these healthcare professionals.
This legislation is just another step in the Republicans' plan to
criminalize abortion nationwide. The House must reject this seriously
flawed bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I will say that the document that launched this experiment in freedom
we call America, the Declaration of Independence, talks about all are
created equal, endowed by our creator with life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. I think it is interesting the order in which the
Founders placed the rights they chose to mention: life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness.
You can't pursue happiness; you can't chase down your goals and
dreams if you first don't have freedom. You don't have freedom and true
liberty unless government protects your most fundamental right: your
right to live, your right to breathe, your right to life.
That is what this legislation is about, protecting the most innocent,
the most vulnerable's right to life.
I urge a ``yes'' vote and hope this thing passes unanimously. Madam
Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 5, 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.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. DeGette of Colorado moves to recommit the bill H.R. 26
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The material previously referred to by Ms. DeGette is as follows:
Ms. DeGette moves to recommit H.R. 26 to the Committee on
the Judiciary with instructions to report the same back to
the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Strike all that follows after the enacting clause and
insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Health Protection
Act of 2023''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) On June 24, 2022, in its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson
Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court overruled Roe
v. Wade, reversing decades of precedent recognizing the
constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal
viability, and to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability
where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of
the treating health care professional, for the preservation
of the life or health of the person who is pregnant.
(2) In their joint dissent, Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and
Kagan write, ``[The majority] says that from the very moment
of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State
can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the
steepest personal and familial costs.''.
(3) The dissenting Justices continue, ``The Mississippi law
at issue here bars abortions after the 15th week of
pregnancy. Under the majority's ruling, though, another
State's law could do so after ten weeks, or five or three or
one--or, again, from the moment of fertilization. States have
already passed such laws, in anticipation of today's ruling.
More will follow.''.
(4) The dissenting Justices also stated, ``one result of
[the] decision is certain; the curtailment of women's rights,
and of their status as free and equal citizens.''.
(5) Indeed, some States acted to ban abortion outright in
the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs decision, with half the
States in the country expected to ban abortion entirely in
the days and weeks to come.
(6) Even before Roe was overturned, access to abortion
services had been obstructed
[[Page H188]]
across the United States in various ways, including blockades
of health care facilities and associated violence,
prohibitions of, and restrictions on, insurance coverage;
parental involvement laws (notification and consent);
restrictions that shame and stigmatize people seeking
abortion services; and medically unnecessary regulations that
neither confer any health benefit nor further the safety of
abortion services, but which harm people by delaying,
complicating access to, and reducing the availability of,
abortion services.
(7) Abortion services are essential to health care, and
access to those services is central to people's ability to
participate equally in the economic and social life of the
United States. Abortion access allows people who are pregnant
to make their own decisions about their pregnancies, their
families, and their lives.
(8) Reproductive justice requires every individual to have
the right to make their own decisions about having children
regardless of their circumstances and without interference
and discrimination. Reproductive Justice is a human right
that can and will be achieved when all people, regardless of
actual or perceived race, color, national origin, immigration
status, sex (including gender identity, sex stereotyping, or
sexual orientation), age, or disability status have the
economic, social, and political power and resources to define
and make decisions about their bodies, health, sexuality,
families, and communities in all areas of their lives, with
dignity and self-determination.
(9) Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on
reproductive health, including abortion, that perpetuate
systems of oppression, lack of bodily autonomy, white
supremacy, and anti-Black racism. This violent legacy has
manifested in policies including enslavement, rape, and
experimentation on Black women; forced sterilizations;
medical experimentation on low-income women's reproductive
systems; and the forcible removal of Indigenous children.
Access to equitable reproductive health care, including
abortion services, has always been deficient in the United
States for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color
(BIPOC) and their families.
(10) The legacy of restrictions on reproductive health,
rights, and justice is not a dated vestige of a dark history.
Presently, the harms of abortion-specific restrictions fall
especially heavily on people with low incomes, BIPOC,
immigrants, young people, people with disabilities, and those
living in rural and other medically underserved areas.
Abortion-specific restrictions are even more compounded by
the ongoing criminalization of people who are pregnant,
including those who are incarcerated, living with HIV, or
with substance-use disorders. These communities already
experience health disparities due to social, political, and
environmental inequities, and restrictions on abortion
services exacerbate these harms. Removing medically
unjustified restrictions on abortion services would
constitute one important step on the path toward realizing
Reproductive Justice by ensuring that the full range of
reproductive health care is accessible to all who need it.
(11) Abortion-specific restrictions are a tool of gender
oppression, as they target health care services that are used
primarily by women. These paternalistic restrictions rely on
and reinforce harmful stereotypes about gender roles, women's
decision-making, and women's need for protection instead of
support, undermining their ability to control their own lives
and well-being. These restrictions harm the basic autonomy,
dignity, and equality of women, and their ability to
participate in the social and economic life of the Nation.
(12) The terms ``woman'' and ``women'' are used in this
bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people
targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services,
and to address squarely the targeted restrictions on
abortion, which are rooted in misogyny. However, access to
abortion services is critical to the health of every person
capable of becoming pregnant. This Act is intended to protect
all people with the capacity for pregnancy--cisgender women,
transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify
with a different gender, and others--who are unjustly harmed
by restrictions on abortion services.
(13) Since 2011, States and local governments have passed
nearly 500 restrictions singling out health care providers
who offer abortion services, interfering with their ability
to provide those services and the patients' ability to obtain
those services.
(14) Many State and local governments have imposed
restrictions on the provision of abortion services that are
neither evidence-based nor generally applicable to the
medical profession or to other medically comparable
outpatient gynecological procedures, such as endometrial
ablations, dilation and curettage for reasons other than
abortion, hysteroscopies, loop electrosurgical excision
procedures, or other analogous non-gynecological procedures
performed in similar outpatient settings including vasectomy,
sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy.
(15) Abortion is essential health care and one of the
safest medical procedures in the United States. An
independent, comprehensive review of the state of science on
the safety and quality of abortion services, published by the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in
2018, found that abortion in the United States is safe and
effective and that the biggest threats to the quality of
abortion services in the United States are State regulations
that create barriers to care. These abortion-specific
restrictions conflict with medical standards and are not
supported by the recommendations and guidelines issued by
leading reproductive health care professional organizations
including the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the Society of Family Planning, the National
Abortion Federation, the World Health Organization, and
others.
(16) Many abortion-specific restrictions do not confer any
health or safety benefits on the patient. Instead, these
restrictions have the purpose and effect of unduly burdening
people's personal and private medical decisions to end their
pregnancies by making access to abortion services more
difficult, invasive, and costly, often forcing people to
travel significant distances and make multiple unnecessary
visits to the provider, and in some cases, foreclosing the
option altogether. For example, a 2018 report from the
University of California San Francisco's Advancing New
Standards in Reproductive Health research group found that in
27 cities across the United States, people have to travel
more than 100 miles in any direction to reach an abortion
provider.
(17) An overwhelming majority of abortions in the United
States are provided in clinics, not hospitals, but the large
majority of counties throughout the United States have no
clinics that provide abortion.
(18) These restrictions additionally harm people's health
by reducing access not only to abortion services but also to
other essential health care services offered by many of the
providers targeted by the restrictions, including--
(A) screenings and preventive services, including
contraceptive services;
(B) testing and treatment for sexually transmitted
infections;
(C) LGBTQ health services; and
(D) referrals for primary care, intimate partner violence
prevention, prenatal care and adoption services.
(19) The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions
has been to severely limit, and now eliminate entirely, the
availability of abortion services in some areas, creating a
patchwork system where the provision of abortion services is
legal in some States and illegal in others. A 2019 report
from the Government Accountability Office examining State
Medicaid compliance with abortion coverage requirements
analyzed seven key challenges (identified both by health care
providers and research literature) and their effect on
abortion access, and found that access to abortion services
varied across the States and even within a State.
(20) International human rights law recognizes that access
to abortion is intrinsically linked to the rights to life,
health, equality and non-discrimination, privacy, and freedom
from ill-treatment. United Nations (UN) human rights treaty
monitoring bodies have found that legal abortion services,
like other reproductive health care services, must be
available, accessible, affordable, acceptable, and of good
quality. UN human rights treaty bodies have likewise
condemned medically unnecessary barriers to abortion
services, including mandatory waiting periods, biased
counseling requirements, and third-party authorization
requirements.
(21) Core human rights treaties ratified by the United
States protect access to abortion. For example, in 2018, the
UN Human Rights Committee, which oversees implementation of
the ICCPR, made clear that the right to life, enshrined in
Article 6 of the ICCPR, at a minimum requires governments to
provide safe, legal, and effective access to abortion where a
person's life and health is at risk, or when carrying a
pregnancy to term would cause substantial pain or suffering.
The Committee stated that governments must not impose
restrictions on abortion which subject women and girls to
physical or mental pain or suffering, discriminate against
them, arbitrarily interfere with their privacy, or place them
at risk of undertaking unsafe abortions. Furthermore, the
Committee stated that governments should remove existing
barriers that deny effective access to safe and legal
abortion, refrain from introducing new barriers to abortion,
and prevent the stigmatization of those seeking abortion.
(22) UN independent human rights experts have expressed
particular concern about barriers to abortion services in the
United States. For example, at the conclusion of his 2017
visit to the United States, the UN Special Rapporteur on
extreme poverty and human rights noted concern that low-
income women face legal and practical obstacles to exercising
their constitutional right to access abortion services,
trapping many women in cycles of poverty. Similarly, in May
2020, the UN Working Group on discrimination against women
and girls, along with other human rights experts, expressed
concern that some states had manipulated the COVID-19 crisis
to restrict access to abortion, which the experts recognized
as ``the latest example illustrating a pattern of
restrictions and retrogressions in access to legal abortion
care across the country'' and reminded U.S. authorities that
abortion care constitutes essential health care that must
remain available during and after the pandemic. They noted
that barriers to abortion access exacerbate systemic
inequalities and cause particular harm to marginalized
communities, including low-income people, people of color,
immigrants, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ people.
[[Page H189]]
(23) Abortion-specific restrictions affect the cost and
availability of abortion services, and the settings in which
abortion services are delivered. People travel across State
lines and otherwise engage in interstate commerce to access
this essential medical care, and more would be forced to do
so absent this Act. Likewise, health care providers travel
across State lines and otherwise engage in interstate
commerce in order to provide abortion services to patients,
and more would be forced to do so absent this Act.
(24) Health care providers engage in a form of economic and
commercial activity when they provide abortion services, and
there is an interstate market for abortion services.
(25) Abortion restrictions substantially affect interstate
commerce in numerous ways. For example, to provide abortion
services, health care providers engage in interstate commerce
to purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary
goods and services. To provide and assist others in providing
abortion services, health care providers engage in interstate
commerce to obtain and provide training. To provide abortion
services, health care providers employ and obtain commercial
services from doctors, nurses, and other personnel who engage
in interstate commerce and travel across State lines.
(26) It is difficult and time and resource-consuming for
clinics to challenge State laws that burden or impede
abortion services. Litigation that blocks one abortion
restriction may not prevent a State from adopting other
similarly burdensome abortion restrictions or using different
methods to burden or impede abortion services. There is a
history and pattern of States passing successive and
different laws that unduly burden abortion services.
(27) When a health care provider ceases providing abortion
services as a result of burdensome and medically unnecessary
regulations, it is often difficult or impossible for that
health care provider to recommence providing those abortion
services, and difficult or impossible for other health care
providers to provide abortion services that restore or
replace the ceased abortion services.
(28) Health care providers are subject to license laws in
various jurisdictions, which are not affected by this Act
except as provided in this Act.
(29) Congress has the authority to enact this Act to
protect abortion services pursuant to--
(A) its powers under the commerce clause of section 8 of
article I of the Constitution of the United States;
(B) its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States to enforce the
provisions of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
(C) its powers under the necessary and proper clause of
section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United
States.
(30) Congress has used its authority in the past to protect
access to abortion services and health care providers'
ability to provide abortion services. In the early 1990s,
protests and blockades at health care facilities where
abortion services were provided, and associated violence,
increased dramatically and reached crisis level, requiring
Congressional action. Congress passed the Freedom of Access
to Clinic Entrances Act (Public Law 103-259; 108 Stat. 694)
to address that situation and protect physical access to
abortion services.
(31) Congressional action is necessary to put an end to
harmful restrictions, to federally protect access to abortion
services for everyone regardless of where they live, and to
protect the ability of health care providers to provide these
services in a safe and accessible manner.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act--
(1) to permit health care providers to provide abortion
services without limitations or requirements that single out
the provision of abortion services for restrictions that are
more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically
comparable procedures, do not significantly advance
reproductive health or the safety of abortion services, and
make abortion services more difficult to access;
(2) to promote access to abortion services and women's
ability to participate equally in the economic and social
life of the United States; and
(3) to invoke Congressional authority, including the powers
of Congress under the commerce clause of section 8 of article
I of the Constitution of the United States, its powers under
section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States to enforce the provisions of section 1 of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and its powers under the necessary
and proper clause of section 8 of article I of the
Constitution of the United States.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Abortion services.--The term ``abortion services''
means an abortion and any medical or non-medical services
related to and provided in conjunction with an abortion
(whether or not provided at the same time or on the same day
as the abortion).
(2) Government.--The term ``government'' includes each
branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official of
the United States or a State.
(3) Health care provider.--The term ``health care
provider'' means any entity or individual (including any
physician, certified nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, and
physician assistant) that--
(A) is engaged or seeks to engage in the delivery of health
care services, including abortion services; and
(B) if required by law or regulation to be licensed or
certified to engage in the delivery of such services--
(i) is so licensed or certified; or
(ii) would be so licensed or certified but for their past,
present, or potential provision of abortion services
permitted by section 4.
(4) Medically comparable procedure.--The term ``medically
comparable procedures'' means medical procedures that are
similar in terms of health and safety risks to the patient,
complexity, or the clinical setting that is indicated.
(5) Pregnancy.--The term ``pregnancy'' refers to the period
of the human reproductive process beginning with the
implantation of a fertilized egg.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory
and possession of the United States, and any subdivision of
any of the foregoing, including any unit of local government,
such as a county, city, town, village, or other general
purpose political subdivision of a State.
(7) Viability.--The term ``viability'' means the point in a
pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the
treating health care provider, based on the particular facts
of the case before the health care provider, there is a
reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the
uterus with or without artificial support.
SEC. 4. PERMITTED SERVICES.
(a) General Rule.--A health care provider has a statutory
right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may
provide abortion services, and that provider's patient has a
corresponding right to receive such services, without any of
the following limitations or requirements:
(1) A requirement that a health care provider perform
specific tests or medical procedures in connection with the
provision of abortion services, unless generally required for
the provision of medically comparable procedures.
(2) A requirement that the same health care provider who
provides abortion services also perform specified tests,
services, or procedures prior to or subsequent to the
abortion.
(3) A requirement that a health care provider offer or
provide the patient seeking abortion services medically
inaccurate information in advance of or during abortion
services.
(4) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to
prescribe or dispense drugs based on current evidence-based
regimens or the provider's good-faith medical judgment, other
than a limitation generally applicable to the medical
profession.
(5) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to
provide abortion services via telemedicine, other than a
limitation generally applicable to the provision of medical
services via telemedicine.
(6) A requirement or limitation concerning the physical
plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements
of facilities where abortion services are provided, or the
credentials or hospital privileges or status of personnel at
such facilities, that is not imposed on facilities or the
personnel of facilities where medically comparable procedures
are performed.
(7) A requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a
patient make one or more medically unnecessary in-person
visits to the provider of abortion services or to any
individual or entity that does not provide abortion services.
(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in
time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or
restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when,
in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health
care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a
risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.
(10) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to
provide immediate abortion services when that health care
provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment
of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the
patient's health.
(11) A requirement that a patient seeking abortion services
at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability
disclose the patient's reason or reasons for seeking abortion
services, or a limitation on the provision or obtaining of
abortion services at any point or points in time prior to
fetal viability based on any actual, perceived, or potential
reason or reasons of the patient for obtaining abortion
services, regardless of whether the limitation is based on a
health care provider's degree of actual or constructive
knowledge of such reason or reasons.
(b) Other Limitations or Requirements.--The statutory right
specified in subsection (a) shall not be limited or otherwise
infringed through, in addition to the limitations and
requirements specified in paragraphs (1) through (11) of
subsection (a), any limitation or requirement that--
(1) is the same as or similar to one or more of the
limitations or requirements described in subsection (a); or
(2) both--
(A) expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented
singles out the provision of abortion services, health care
providers who
[[Page H190]]
provide abortion services, or facilities in which abortion
services are provided; and
(B) impedes access to abortion services.
(c) Factors for Consideration.--Factors a court may
consider in determining whether a limitation or requirement
impedes access to abortion services for purposes of
subsection (b)(2)(B) include the following:
(1) Whether the limitation or requirement, in a provider's
good-faith medical judgment, interferes with a health care
provider's ability to provide care and render services, or
poses a risk to the patient's health or safety.
(2) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably
likely to delay or deter some patients in accessing abortion
services.
(3) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably
likely to directly or indirectly increase the cost of
providing abortion services or the cost for obtaining
abortion services (including costs associated with travel,
childcare, or time off work).
(4) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably
likely to have the effect of necessitating a trip to the
offices of a health care provider that would not otherwise be
required.
(5) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably
likely to result in a decrease in the availability of
abortion services in a given State or geographic region.
(6) Whether the limitation or requirement imposes penalties
that are not imposed on other health care providers for
comparable conduct or failure to act, or that are more severe
than penalties imposed on other health care providers for
comparable conduct or failure to act.
(7) The cumulative impact of the limitation or requirement
combined with other new or existing limitations or
requirements.
(d) Exception.--To defend against a claim that a limitation
or requirement violates a health care provider's or patient's
statutory rights under subsection (b), a party must
establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that--
(1) the limitation or requirement significantly advances
the safety of abortion services or the health of patients;
and
(2) the safety of abortion services or the health of
patients cannot be advanced by a less restrictive alternative
measure or action.
SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY AND PREEMPTION.
(a) In General.--
(1) Except as stated under subsection (b), this Act
supersedes and applies to the law of the Federal Government
and each State government, and the implementation of such
law, whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether
adopted before or after the date of enactment of this Act,
and neither the Federal Government nor any State government
shall administer, implement, or enforce any law, rule,
regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and
effect of law that conflicts with any provision of this Act,
notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
2000bb et seq.).
(2) Federal statutory law adopted after the date of the
enactment of this Act is subject to this Act unless such law
explicitly excludes such application by reference to this
Act.
(b) Limitations.--The provisions of this Act shall not
supersede or apply to--
(1) laws regulating physical access to clinic entrances;
(2) insurance or medical assistance coverage of abortion
services;
(3) the procedure described in section 1531(b)(1) of title
18, United States Code; or
(4) generally applicable State contract law.
(c) Defense.--In any cause of action against an individual
or entity who is subject to a limitation or requirement that
violates this Act, in addition to the remedies specified in
section 8, this Act shall also apply to, and may be raised as
a defense by, such an individual or entity.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect immediately upon the date of
enactment of this Act. This Act shall apply to all
restrictions on the provision of, or access to, abortion
services whether the restrictions are enacted or imposed
prior to or after the date of enactment of this Act, except
as otherwise provided in this Act.
SEC. 7. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a) In General.--In interpreting the provisions of this
Act, a court shall liberally construe such provisions to
effectuate the purposes of the Act.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to authorize any government to interfere with,
diminish, or negatively affect a person's ability to obtain
or provide abortion services.
(c) Other Individuals Considered as Government Officials.--
Any person who, by operation of a provision of Federal or
State law, is permitted to implement or enforce a limitation
or requirement that violates section 4 of this Act shall be
considered a government official for purposes of this Act.
SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Attorney General.--The Attorney General may commence a
civil action on behalf of the United States against any State
that violates, or against any government official (including
a person described in section 7(c)) that implements or
enforces a limitation or requirement that violates, section
4. The court shall hold unlawful and set aside the limitation
or requirement if it is in violation of this Act.
(b) Private Right of Action.--
(1) In general.--Any individual or entity, including any
health care provider or patient, adversely affected by an
alleged violation of this Act, may commence a civil action
against any State that violates, or against any government
official (including a person described in section 7(c)) that
implements or enforces a limitation or requirement that
violates, section 4. The court shall hold unlawful and set
aside the limitation or requirement if it is in violation of
this Act.
(2) Health care provider.--A health care provider may
commence an action for relief on its own behalf, on behalf of
the provider's staff, and on behalf of the provider's
patients who are or may be adversely affected by an alleged
violation of this Act.
(c) Equitable Relief.--In any action under this section,
the court may award appropriate equitable relief, including
temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief.
(d) Costs.--In any action under this section, the court
shall award costs of litigation, as well as reasonable
attorney's fees, to any prevailing plaintiff. A plaintiff
shall not be liable to a defendant for costs or attorney's
fees in any non-frivolous action under this section.
(e) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United States
shall have jurisdiction over proceedings under this Act and
shall exercise the same without regard to whether the party
aggrieved shall have exhausted any administrative or other
remedies that may be provided for by law.
(f) Abrogation of State Immunity.--Neither a State that
enforces or maintains, nor a government official (including a
person described in section 7(c)) who is permitted to
implement or enforce any limitation or requirement that
violates section 4 shall be immune under the Tenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States, the Eleventh
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any
other source of law, from an action in a Federal or State
court of competent jurisdiction challenging that limitation
or requirement.
SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such
provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance,
is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or
the application of such provision to all other persons,
entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be
affected thereby.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
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. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________