[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.

                          ____________________