[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 22516-22526]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                UNBORN CHILD PAIN AWARENESS ACT OF 2006

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 6099) to ensure that women seeking an abortion are 
fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 6099

       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 ``Unborn Child Pain Awareness 
     Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) At least by 20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn 
     child has the physical structures necessary to experience 
     pain.
       (2) There is substantial evidence that by 20 weeks after 
     fertilization, unborn children draw away from certain stimuli 
     in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be 
     interpreted as a response to pain.
       (3) Anesthesia is routinely administered to unborn children 
     who have developed 20 weeks or more after fertilization who 
     undergo prenatal surgery.
       (4) There is substantial evidence that the abortion methods 
     most commonly used 20 weeks or more after fertilization cause 
     substantial pain to an unborn child, whether by 
     dismemberment, poisoning, penetrating or crushing the skull, 
     or other methods. Examples of abortion methods used 20 weeks 
     or more after fertilization include, but are not limited to 
     the following:
       (A) The dilation and evacuation (D and E) method of 
     abortion is commonly performed in the second trimester of 
     pregnancy. In a dilation and evacuation abortion, the unborn 
     child's body parts are grasped with a long-toothed clamp. The 
     fetal body parts are then torn from the body and pulled out 
     of the vaginal canal. The remaining body parts are grasped 
     and pulled out until only the head remains. The head is then 
     grasped and crushed in order to remove it from the vaginal 
     canal.
       (B) Partial-birth abortion is an abortion in which the 
     abortion practitioner delivers an unborn child's body until 
     only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of 
     the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the 
     child's brains out before completing the delivery of the dead 
     infant, and as further defined in 18 U.S.C. 1531.
       (5) Expert testimony confirms that by 20 weeks after 
     fertilization an unborn child may experience substantial pain 
     even if the woman herself has received local analgesic or 
     general anesthesia.
       (6) Medical science is capable of reducing such pain 
     through the administration of anesthesia or other pain-
     reducing drugs directly to the unborn child.
       (7) There is a valid Federal Government interest in 
     preventing or reducing the infliction of pain on sentient 
     creatures. Examples of this are laws governing the use of 
     laboratory animals and requiring pain-free methods of 
     slaughtering livestock, which include, but are not limited to 
     the following:
       (A) Section 2 of the Act commonly known as the Humane 
     Slaughter Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-765; 7 U.S.C. 1902) 
     states, ``No method of slaughter or handling in connection 
     with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public 
     policy of the United States unless it is humane. Either of 
     the following two methods of slaughtering and handling are 
     hereby found to be humane--
       ``(i) in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, 
     swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered 
     insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an 
     electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and 
     effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or 
     cut; or
       ``(ii) by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual 
     requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith 
     that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal 
     suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused 
     by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the 
     carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in 
     connection with such slaughtering.''.
       (B) Section 13(a)(3) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2143(a)(3)) sets the standards and certification process for 
     the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of 
     animals. This includes having standards with respect to 
     animals in research facilities that include requirements--
       (i) for animal care, treatment, and practices in 
     experimental procedures to ensure that animal pain and 
     distress are minimized,

[[Page 22517]]

     including adequate veterinary care with the appropriate use 
     of anesthetic, analgesic, tranquilizing drugs, or euthanasia;
       (ii) that the principal investigator considers alternatives 
     to any procedure likely to produce pain to or distress in an 
     experimental animal; and
       (iii) in any practice which could cause pain to animals--

       (I) that a doctor of veterinary medicine is consulted in 
     the planning of such procedures;
       (II) for the use of tranquilizers, analgesics, and 
     anesthetics;
       (III) for pre-surgical and post-surgical care by laboratory 
     workers, in accordance with established veterinary medical 
     and nursing procedures;
       (IV) against the use of paralytics without anesthesia; and
       (V) that the withholding of tranquilizers, anesthesia, 
     analgesia, or euthanasia when scientifically necessary shall 
     continue for only the necessary period of time.

       (C) Section 495 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     289d) directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     acting through the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health, to establish guidelines for research facilities as to 
     the proper care and treatment of animals, including the 
     appropriate use of tranquilizers, analgesics, and other 
     drugs, except that such guidelines may not prescribe methods 
     of research. Entities that conduct biomedical and behavioral 
     research with National Institutes of Health funds must 
     establish animal care committees which must conduct reviews 
     at least semiannually and report to the Director of such 
     Institutes at least annually. If the Director determines that 
     an entity has not been following the guidelines, the Director 
     must give the entity an opportunity to take corrective 
     action, and, if the entity does not, the Director must 
     suspend or revoke the grant or contract involved.
       (8) There is a valid Federal Government interest in 
     preventing harm to developing human life at all stages. 
     Examples of this include regulations protecting fetal human 
     subjects from risks of ``harm or discomfort'' in federally 
     funded biomedical research, 45 C.F.R. 102(i) and 45 C.F.R. 
     46.201 et seq.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

       The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

               ``TITLE XXIX--UNBORN CHILD PAIN AWARENESS

     ``SEC. 2901. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Abortion.--The term `abortion' means the intentional 
     use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any 
     other substance or device or method to terminate the life of 
     an unborn child, or to terminate the pregnancy of a woman 
     known to be pregnant with an intention other than--
       ``(A) to produce a live birth and preserve the life and 
     health of the child after live birth; or
       ``(B) to remove an ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead 
     unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous 
     abortion, accidental trauma or a criminal assault on the 
     pregnant female or her unborn child.
       ``(2) Abortion provider.--The term `abortion provider' 
     means any person legally qualified to perform an abortion 
     under applicable Federal and State laws.
       ``(3) Pain-capable unborn child.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `pain-capable unborn child' 
     means an unborn child who has reached a probable stage of 
     development of 20 weeks or more after fertilization.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) 
     shall be construed as a determination or finding by Congress 
     that pain may not in fact be experienced by an unborn child 
     at stages of development prior to 20 weeks or more after 
     fertilization.
       ``(4) Probable age of development.--The term `probable age 
     of development' means the duration of development after 
     fertilization of the unborn child at the time an abortion is 
     performed, as determined in the good faith judgment of the 
     abortion provider using generally accepted medical criteria 
     and information obtained by interviewing the pregnant woman.
       ``(5) Unborn child.--The term `unborn child' means a member 
     of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development.
       ``(6) Woman.--The term `woman' means a female human being 
     whether or not she has reached the age of majority.
       ``(7) Unemancipated minor.--The term `unemancipated minor' 
     means an individual who is not older than 18 years and who is 
     not emancipated under State law.

     ``SEC. 2902. REQUIREMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT.

       ``(a) Requirement of Compliance by Providers.--Any abortion 
     provider in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, who 
     knowingly performs any abortion of a pain-capable unborn 
     child, shall comply with the requirements of this title.
       ``(b) Provision of Consent.--
       ``(1) In general.--Before any part of an abortion involving 
     a pain-capable unborn child begins, the abortion provider or 
     his or her agent shall provide the pregnant woman involved, 
     by telephone or in person, with the information described in 
     paragraph (2). It may not be provided by a tape recording, 
     but must be provided in a fashion that permits the woman to 
     ask questions of and receive answers from the abortion 
     provider or his agent. (In the case of the Unborn Child Pain 
     Awareness Brochure, it may be provided pursuant to subsection 
     (c)(2) or (c)(3)).
       ``(2) Required information.--
       ``(A) In general.--An abortion provider or the provider's 
     agent to whom paragraph (1) applies shall provide the 
     following information to the pregnant woman (or in the case 
     of a deaf or non-English speaking woman, provide the 
     statement in a manner that she can easily understand):
       ``(i) Age of unborn baby.--The probable age of development 
     of the unborn baby based on the number of weeks since 
     fertilization.
       ``(ii) Unborn child pain awareness brochure.--An abortion 
     provider to whom paragraph (1) applies must provide the 
     pregnant woman with the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure 
     (referred to in this section as the `Brochure') to be 
     developed by the Department of Health and Human Services 
     under subsection (c) or with the information described in 
     subsection (c)(2) relating to accessing such Brochure.
       ``(iii) Use of pain-preventing drugs.--Drugs administered 
     to the mother may not prevent the unborn child from feeling 
     pain, but in some cases, anesthesia or other pain-reducing 
     drug or drugs can be administered directly to the unborn 
     child.
       ``(iv) Description of risks.--After providing the 
     information required under clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) the 
     abortion provider shall provide the woman involved with his 
     or her best medical judgment on the risks, if any, of 
     administering such anesthesia or analgesic, and the costs 
     associated therewith.
       ``(v) Administration of anesthesia.--If the abortion 
     provider is not qualified or willing to administer the 
     anesthesia or other pain-reducing drug to an unborn child in 
     response to a request from a pregnant women, the provider 
     shall--

       ``(I) arrange for a qualified specialist to administer such 
     anesthesia or drug; or
       ``(II) advise the pregnant woman--

       ``(aa) where she may obtain such anesthesia or other pain 
     reducing drugs for the unborn child in the course of an 
     abortion; or
       ``(bb) that the abortion provider is unable to perform the 
     abortion if the woman requires that she receive anesthesia or 
     other pain-reducing drug for her unborn child.
       ``(vi) Unborn child pain awareness decision form.--An 
     abortion provider to which paragraph (1) applies shall 
     provide the pregnant woman with the Unborn Child Pain 
     Awareness Decision Form (provided for under subsection (d)) 
     and obtain the appropriate signature of the woman on such 
     form.
       ``(vii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section may 
     be construed to impede an abortion provider or the abortion 
     provider's agent from offering their own evaluation on the 
     capacity of the unborn child to experience pain, the 
     advisability of administering pain-reducing drugs to the 
     unborn child, or any other matter, as long as such provider 
     or agent provides the required information, obtains the 
     woman's signature on the decision form, and otherwise 
     complies with the affirmative requirements of the law.
       ``(B) Unborn child pain awareness brochure.--An abortion 
     provider to whom paragraph (1) applies shall provide the 
     pregnant woman with the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure 
     (referred to in this section as the `Brochure') to be 
     developed by the Department of Health and Human Services 
     under subsection (c) or with the information described in 
     subsection (c)(2) relating to accessing such Brochure.
       ``(C) Unborn child pain awareness decision form.--An 
     abortion provider to which paragraph (1) applies shall 
     provide the pregnant woman with the Unborn Child Pain 
     Awareness Decision Form (provided for under subsection (d)) 
     and obtain the appropriate signature of the woman on such 
     form.
       ``(c) Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure.--
       ``(1) Development.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall develop an 
     Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure. Such Brochure shall:
       ``(A) Be written in English and Spanish.
       ``(B) Contain the following text: `Your doctor has 
     determined that, in his or her best medial judgment, your 
     unborn child is at least 20 weeks old. There is a significant 
     body of evidence that unborn children at 20 weeks after 
     fertilization have the physical structures necessary to 
     experience pain. There is substantial evidence that at least 
     by this point, unborn children draw away from surgical 
     instruments in a manner which in an infant or an adult would 
     be interpreted as a response to pain. There is substantial 
     evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will 
     cause the unborn child pain, even though you receive a pain-
     reducing drug or drugs. Under the Federal Unborn Child Pain 
     Awareness Act of 2006, you have a right to know that there is 
     evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will 
     cause your unborn child pain. You may request that anesthesia 
     or other pain-reducing drug or drugs are administered 
     directly to the pain-capable unborn child if you so desire. 
     The purpose of administering

[[Page 22518]]

     such drug or drugs would be to reduce or eliminate the 
     capacity of the unborn child to experience pain during the 
     abortion procedure. In some cases, there may be some 
     additional risk to you associated with administering such a 
     drug.'
       ``(C) Contain greater detail on her option of having a 
     pain-reducing drug or drugs administered to the unborn child 
     to reduce the experience of pain by the unborn child during 
     the abortion.
       ``(D) Be written in an objective and nonjudgmental manner 
     and be printed in a typeface large enough to be clearly 
     legible.
       ``(E) Be made available by the Secretary at no cost to any 
     abortion provider.
       ``(2) Internet information.--The Brochure under this 
     section shall be available on the Internet website of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services at a minimum 
     resolution of 70 DPI (dots per inch). All pictures appearing 
     on the website shall be a minimum of 200x300 pixels. All 
     letters on the website shall be a minimum of 12 point font. 
     All such information and pictures shall be accessible with an 
     industry standard browser, requiring no additional plug-ins.
       ``(3) Presentation of brochure.--An abortion provider or 
     his or her agent must provide a pregnant woman with the 
     Brochure, developed under paragraph (1), before any part of 
     an abortion of a pain-capable child begins. The brochure may 
     be provided--
       ``(A) through an in-person visit by the pregnant woman;
       ``(B) through an e-mail attachment, from the abortion 
     provider or his or her agent; or
       ``(C) by certified mail, mailed to the woman at least 72 
     hours before any part of the abortion begins.
       ``(4) Waiver.--After the abortion provider or his or her 
     agent offers to provide a pregnant woman the brochure, a 
     pregnant woman may waive receipt of the brochure under this 
     subsection by signing the waiver form contained in the Unborn 
     Child Pain Awareness Decision Form.
       ``(d) Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form.--Not later 
     than 30 days after the date of enactment of this title, the 
     Secretary shall develop an Unborn Child Pain Awareness 
     Decision Form. To be valid, such form shall--
       ``(1) with respect to the pregnant woman--
       ``(A) contain a statement that affirms that the woman has 
     received or been offered all of the information required in 
     subsection (b);
       ``(B) affirm that the woman has read the following 
     statement: `You are considering having an abortion of an 
     unborn child who will have developed, at the time of the 
     abortion, approximately __ weeks after fertilization. There 
     is a significant body of evidence that unborn children at 20 
     weeks after fertilization have the physical structures 
     necessary to experience pain. There is substantial evidence 
     that at least by this point, unborn children draw away from 
     surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an 
     adult would be interpreted as a response to pain. There is 
     substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an 
     abortion will cause the unborn child pain, even though you 
     receive a pain-reducing drug or drugs. Under the Federal 
     Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, you have a right to 
     know that there is evidence that the process of being killed 
     in an abortion will cause your unborn child pain. You may 
     request that anesthesia or other pain-reducing drug or drugs 
     are administered directly to the pain-capable unborn child if 
     you so desire. The purpose of administering such drug or 
     drugs would be to reduce or eliminate the capacity of the 
     unborn child to experience pain during the abortion 
     procedure. In some cases, there may be some additional risk 
     to you associated with administering such a drug.';
       ``(C) require the woman to explicitly either request or 
     refuse the administration of pain-reducing drugs to the 
     unborn child; and
       ``(D) be signed by a pregnant woman prior to the 
     performance of an abortion involving a pain-capable unborn 
     child; and
       ``(2) with respect to the abortion provider--
       ``(A) contain a statement that the provider has provided 
     the woman with all of the information required under 
     subsection (b);
       ``(B) if applicable, contain a certification by the 
     provider that an exception described in section 2903 applies 
     and the detailed reasons for such certification; and
       ``(C) be signed by the provider prior to the performance of 
     the abortion procedure.
       ``(e) Maintenance of Records.--The Secretary shall 
     promulgate regulations relating to the period of time during 
     which copies of forms under subsection (d) shall be 
     maintained by abortion providers.

     ``SEC. 2903. EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The provisions of section 2902 shall not 
     apply to an abortion provider in the case of a medical 
     emergency.
       ``(b) Medical Emergency Defined.--
       ``(1) In general.--In subsection (a), the term `medical 
     emergency' means a condition which, in the reasonable medical 
     judgment of the abortion provider, so complicates the medical 
     condition of the pregnant woman so as to necessitate the 
     immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert her death, or 
     for which a delay would create a serious risk of substantial 
     and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. The 
     term `medical emergency' shall not include emotional, 
     psychological or mental disorders or conditions.
       ``(2) Reasonable medical judgment.--In paragraph (1), the 
     term `reasonable medical judgment' means a medical judgment 
     that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, 
     knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities 
     with respect to the medical conditions involved.
       ``(c) Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon a determination by an abortion 
     provider under subsection (a) that a medical emergency exists 
     with respect to a pregnant woman, such provider shall certify 
     the specific medical conditions that constitute the 
     emergency.
       ``(2) False statements.--An abortion provider who willfully 
     falsifies a certification under paragraph (1) shall be 
     subject to all the penalties provided for under section 2904 
     for failure to comply with this title.

     ``SEC. 2904. PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY.

       ``(a) In General.--An abortion provider who willfully fails 
     to comply with the provisions of this title shall be subject 
     to civil penalties in accordance with this section in an 
     appropriate Federal court.
       ``(b) Commencement of Action.--The Attorney General may 
     commence a civil action under this section.
       ``(c) First Offense.--Upon a finding by a court that a 
     respondent in an action commenced under this section has 
     knowingly violated a provision of this title, the court shall 
     notify the appropriate State medical licensing authority and 
     shall assess a civil penalty against the respondent in an 
     amount not to exceed $100,000.
       ``(d) Second and Subsequent Offenses.--Upon a finding by a 
     court that the respondent in an action commenced under this 
     section has knowingly violated a provision of this title and 
     the respondent has been found to have knowingly violated a 
     provision of this title on a prior occasion, the court shall 
     notify the appropriate State medical licensing authority and 
     shall assess a civil penalty against the respondent in an 
     amount not to exceed $250,000.
       ``(e) Private Right of Action.--A pregnant woman upon whom 
     an abortion has been performed in violation of this title, or 
     the parent or legal guardian of such a woman if she is an 
     unemancipated minor, may commence a civil action against the 
     abortion provider for any knowing or reckless violation of 
     this title for actual and punitive damages.''.

     SEC. 4. PREEMPTION.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law to 
     the extent that such State law establishes, implements, or 
     continues in effect greater protections for unborn children 
     from pain than the protections provided under this Act and 
     the amendments made by this Act.

     SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

       The provisions of this Act shall be severable. If any 
     provision of this Act, or any application thereof, is found 
     unconstitutional, that finding shall not affect any provision 
     or application of the Act not so adjudicated.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Deal) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to insert extraneous material on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child 
Pain Awareness Act of 2006.
  This legislation is intended to ensure that women seeking an abortion 
are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn 
child. It also ensures that women will have the chance to ask 
questions; and, if they so choose, request that pain-reducing 
medicines, anesthesia, or analgesia be administered to their unborn 
child before the abortion takes place.
  At the outset, it is important to clarify that this legislation is 
not about the right to have an abortion. While citizens in other parts 
of the world, such as in Europe and in Canada, have the opportunity to 
vote and express their views on the issue of whether or not abortion 
should be legal, the United States is the only industrialized country 
in the world where its citizens do not have that right. The United 
States Supreme Court has effectively taken it away from the American 
people through its decisions.

[[Page 22519]]

  As someone who believes in the sanctity of human life, I look forward 
to a day when the American citizens on both sides of the abortion 
debate can decide the issue democratically rather than having it 
decided for them through judicial activism. I trust the American people 
to make the right decision when that day comes.
  But, Mr. Speaker, today rather than dealing with the legality of 
abortion itself, this legislation deals with the issue of informed 
consent for women choosing to have an abortion. The bill requires 
abortion providers to inform women about the pain experienced by their 
unborn child. It also requires women to be given a brochure and a 
consent form demonstrating that they have had an opportunity to make an 
inform decision on whether or not to administer pain mitigation to the 
unborn child before the abortion is performed.
  A significant body of medical evidence now indicates that fetuses 
experience pain. Dr. Sunny Anand, a neurologist and the Nation's 
leading expert on fetal pain, testified that ``the human fetus 
possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if 
not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense 
than that experienced by term newborns or other children.''
  Since Dr. Anand's groundbreaking research published in 1987 showed 
that by 20 weeks these fetuses can feel pain, other researchers have 
built on his work, further verifying the pain felt by the unborn. For 
example, just this year British researchers performed brain scans on 
premature babies as young as 23 weeks from fertilization and found new 
physiological evidence that these premature infants feel pain.
  But perhaps more important than the scientific studies, we know that 
doctors who perform surgery on babies in the womb, as well as babies 
who are born prematurely, some as early as 23 weeks of gestation, 
routinely administer anesthesia to these children, just like an adult 
who is undergoing surgery.
  As Dr. Jean Wright, a physician in Savannah, Georgia, who specializes 
in the care and anesthesia of critically ill children, testified before 
Congress last year, ``If you came back with me to Savannah tonight and 
came to our neonatal intensive care unit, we would stand between the 
bed of a 23-week infant, a 26-week infant, and you would not need a 
congressional hearing to figure out whether that infant feels pain. We 
roll back the sheets or blanket, and you would look to the facial 
expression, their response to the heel stick, you would understand 
that.''
  As I have stated before, the problem that this legislation seeks to 
address is the issue of informed consent for women seeking abortions. 
Like most of us, women who arrive at clinics seeking abortions are 
usually not trained in the medical sciences. We rely on physicians to 
provide all of the information needed to make an informed decision.
  In the case of abortion, we need to make sure that women know all the 
facts, including the evidence that unborn children feel pain. This is 
obviously for the benefit of the unborn child who may either be spared 
from abortion altogether or receive pain-reducing medicines.
  Truly informed consent also benefits the woman who may decide against 
having an abortion, or may decide to use pain mitigation for the unborn 
child during the abortion procedure. Either way, she will be spared the 
severe psychological trauma that may result from making an uninformed 
decision.
  This legislation is a commonsense measure that both pro-life and pro-
choice Members should support. In fact, NARAL, a large pro-abortion 
organization, has publicly declared that they do not oppose the bill.
  At this time, I would like to thank the lead sponsor of the bill, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for his work on this legislation 
and for being a stalwart in the pro-life cause in Congress. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child Pain 
Awareness Act of 2006. This bill mandates that a woman seeking an 
abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy be given a written brochure 
stating that research indicates that a fetus at that stage of 
development will feel pain during an abortion.
  This bill also requires a doctor to offer the woman anesthesia for 
the fetus which she may either accept or decline.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem with this legislation is that the medical 
and scientific community has yet to reach a consensus with regard to 
the issue of when and if a fetus feels pain. In fact, the American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, along with physicians who 
are experts in fetal anesthesia and fetal surgery, know of no 
legitimate scientific data or information that supports these views. 
Despite this, Congress has decided to play politics with women's 
health.
  This legislation may put women at risk. There is no evidence to show 
the effects on a woman by providing anesthesia directly to a fetus 
during an abortion. Without proper medical studies, we have no way of 
knowing how such procedures will affect a woman's health at the time of 
the abortion or in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, supporters of this bill will argue that it includes an 
assurance that doctors who disagree with materials contained within 
these mandated brochures may offer their own views to patients. But 
what good comes from a doctor handing their patient a brochure and then 
conveying opposition to what is inside it? Instead of helping patients, 
Congress is interfering with a doctor's best medical judgment as well 
as the doctor-patient relationship.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly written in this case by anti-choice advocates, 
these brochures are biased and define an abortion as ``the process of 
being killed.'' Normally I would support legislation which aims to 
offer women as much information as possible with respect to their 
medical decisions. Ensuring that patients have access to all of the 
important and relevant medical information should always be a priority 
for Congress, but this bill plays politics with those goals. Instead, 
it provides mandated, misleading information to women without proper 
scientific knowledge.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I think it is ill-
advised. I think it sets a bad precedent for the type of information 
that is provided to patients. There is absolutely no reason why this 
should be mandated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the author of 
this legislation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, most, perhaps everybody in this 
House today, has had to deal at one time or another with the emotional 
agony of a loved one dying from severe illness, an accident, or perhaps 
even an act of violence.
  One of the questions we often ask is, Did they suffer? How much pain 
did they endure? Did we do everything we can to alleviate their pain?
  Today, we can no longer deny, trivialize or gloss over the 
significant and ever-expanding body of knowledge that shows that an 
unborn child suffers real pain, excruciating pain, when he or she is 
dismembered, as in a D&E abortion, or jabbed with scissors as in a 
partial-birth abortion, or poisoned by an abortionist.
  Not only is abortion violence against children, but we now know that 
the abortion act itself is painful to the baby as well. As the 
gentleman from Georgia pointed out a moment ago, Dr. Sunny Anand, an 
expert on pain for the unborn and the neonates, has pointed out that 
human fetuses possess the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of 
gestation, if not earlier, and there is a whole growing body of 
evidence that clearly demonstrates that. Meanwhile, approximately 
18,000 unborn children at 20 weeks or beyond, are destroyed without 
even the basic decency of pain relief.
  Let me describe to you what one of the abortionists who now has 
turned

[[Page 22520]]

pro-life, says about the D&E abortion procedure. He did about 10 
abortions per week, Dr. Anthony Levatino, from New York, here is how he 
described this D&E method of abortion. These are his words, he did 
them: ``Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to 
set the jaws and pull hard, really hard. You feel something let go and 
out pops a fully formed leg about 4-5 inches long. Reach in again and 
grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and 
out pops an arm about the same length.

                              {time}  1130

  Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, 
intestines, heart, and lungs. The toughest part of a D&E abortion is 
extracting the baby's head. ``The head of the baby that age is about 
the size of a plum,'' he goes on to say, ``and is now free floating 
inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it 
when the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will 
allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp 
and see a pure white gelatinous material issued from the cervix. That 
was the baby's brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you 
have a really bad day,'' he goes on to say, ``like I often did, a 
little face may come out and stare right back at you.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is a hideous, barbaric abuse of children. And, yes, 
sadly we are not stopping it with this legislation. I wish we had the 
ability to protect these children from this kind of child abuse. We 
need to affirm both patients, mother and baby. That is what prenatal 
care is all about. Our legislation is simply informed consent, 
requiring that a brochure, not unlike those booklets given to women in 
many States of the union that describe the growth of an unborn child 
and any problems she may experience, be given to her since she has the 
right to know this very important information.
  Abortion methods kill, Mr. Speaker, and we need to at least allow 
that child pain medication information be conveyed to the mother.
  Most--perhaps everyone in the House today--has had to deal at one 
time or another with the emotional agony of a loved one dying from 
severe illness, an accident or perhaps even an act of violence.
  One of the questions we often ask is how much did they suffer? How 
much pain? Did we do everything possible to alleviate that pain?
  Today, we can no longer deny, trivialize, or gloss over the 
significant and ever expanding body of knowledge that shows that an 
unborn child suffers real pain--excruciating pain--when he or she is 
dismembered as in a D & E abortion, or jabbed with scissors in a 
partial birth abortion, or poisoned by an abortionist.
  Not only is abortion violence against children but we now know that 
abortion is painful to the baby as well.
  In expert testimony provided to the Northern District of the U.S. 
District Court in California during the partial birth abortion trials, 
Dr. Sunny Anand, Director of the Pain Neurobiology Lab at Arkansas 
Children's Hospital Research Institute said, ``the human fetus 
possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if 
not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense 
than that perceived by term newborn's or older children.''
  In testimony before the Virginia State Senate, Dr. Jean Wright of 
Emory University School of Medicine said ``Aspects of pain architecture 
begin as early as six to seven weeks, mature and are identified by 
their anatomy, their physiology, and the coordination of responses so 
that by 20-22 weeks of gestation, the evidence reveals a developed 
system of pain perception and response. . . . The ability to modulate 
or blunt the pain response does not develop until the last weeks of 
pregnancy and the first few weeks of infancy, leading us to believe 
that the pain perceived in the fetus is greater than that in the full-
term infant.
  Dr. Anand further describes before the court that the'' highest 
density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development 
occurs in utero,'' while still in the womb, ``from 20 to 30 weeks 
gestation. During this period, the epidermis is still very thin, 
leaving nerve fibers closer to the surface of the skin than in older 
neonates and adults.''
  He went on to explain that the pain inhibitory mechanisms, in other 
words fibers which dampen and modulate the experience of pain, do not 
begin to develop until 32 to 34 weeks of gestation. Thus, Dr. Anand 
concludes, a fetus 20 to 32 weeks of gestation would experience a much 
more intense pain than older infants or children or adults when these 
groups are subjected to similar types of injury.
  Dr. Anand points out on the question of fetal consciousness that more 
than 3 decades of research show that preterm infants are actively 
perceiving, learning and organizing information, and are constantly 
striving to regulate themselves, their environment and their 
experiences. All preterm infants actively approach and favor 
experiences that are developmentally supporting and actively avoiding 
experiences that are disruptive.
  Additionally a recent British study measured blood flow and oxygen in 
the part of the brain that feels pain while blood was drawn during a 
heel lance. The results showed a surge of blood and oxygen in the 
sensory area of their brains, meaning the pain was processed in the 
higher levels of the brain. Indicating that these little boys and girls 
do feel pain.
  Meanwhile approximately 18,000 unborn children at 20 weeks or beyond 
are destroyed without the basic decency of pain relief. That means that 
twice every hour a baby is destroyed without pain alleviation by 
methods that include the D&E abortion.
  The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is a modest but necessary 
expansion of informed consent.
  To date several states have enacted informed consent laws that convey 
in booklet form to the mother the facts concerning development of an 
unborn baby as well as risks associated with abortions.
  Our bipartisan legislation simply ensures that new information 
concerning pain capable in unborn babies be conveyed as well.
  Under H.R. 6099, a woman considering an abortion at or past 20 weeks 
fertilization must simply be given an HHS produced brochure describing 
the most accurate and up to date information on unborn child pain. 
After that, the mother is given a decision form on which she may either 
request or decline pain relieving drugs for her baby prior to the 
abortion.
  Is it our hope that this additional information may dissuade a woman 
from allowing her child to be killed? Absolutely.
  I--we--believe good medicine should affirm the value, and dignity of 
every human life. We need to affirm both patients--mother and child.
  For the child dismembered by hideous and abusive abortion methods 
like the D & E abortion that happen every day--the little girl or boy 
at least shouldn't be made to suffer.
  Here's how Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist describes the 
painful D & E abortion.
  ``Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set 
the jaws and pull hard--really hard. You feel something let go and out 
pops a fully formed leg about 4-5 inches long. Reach in again and grasp 
whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out 
pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that 
clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs. . . The 
toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby's head. The head 
of the baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free 
floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have 
hold of it if the [Sopher] clamp is spread about as far as your fingers 
will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the 
clamp and see a puer white gelatinous material issued from the cervix. 
That was the baby's brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If 
you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out 
and stare back at you.''
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099 for many reasons.
  Most glaringly is the fact that this bill is even up on the floor to 
begin with. We have not passed our spending bills. We have not fixed 
the looming physician fee reimbursement crisis, physicians who treat 
pain every day. We have not increased the minimum wage. We are 
inflicting pain on so many hardworking Americans. We have not 
adequately provided for our veterans' health care. I am thinking of 
veterans coming back from Iraq with relentless pain and the many unmet 
needs. These are issues that affect millions and millions of Americans 
every day.
  Yet instead we are considering H.R. 6099, which may affect about 1 
percent of the abortions performed annually in the United States and 
which we know

[[Page 22521]]

will not be considered in the Senate and therefore never signed into 
law. We are wasting time today on a bill that is laden with rhetoric 
but very little science. It is opposed by many of the most reputable 
advocates for women's health, those on the front line of service to 
women and babies who would best know. This includes, as my colleague 
has said, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who 
represent medical doctors serving the health needs of American women.
  The legislation before us today proposes to insert narrow personal 
views into the private conversations between women and their doctors. 
As a health provider myself, I would shudder at the thought of having 
to communicate something that is absent of scientific consensus to 
patients. This is especially true when the legislation targets 
pregnancies that are for the most part being terminated because of 
health risks to the mother or fetus. Isn't that conversation already 
excruciating enough for a woman and her family without the government's 
unwarranted intrusion?
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' today on this bill both because 
you believe in medical integrity and also because you believe that it 
is our job to put America's true priorities first and foremost.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ 
minutes to my colleague from Georgia, a physician, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Chairman Deal from 
Georgia, for yielding.
  This slow-talking Georgia physician can't say a whole lot in a 
minute, but I hope my words will strike a nerve.
  Just as the author's poster showed the striking of many nerves in 
this procedure called late-term abortion on these infants, the youngest 
of our children, I want to just relay to my colleagues an experience, a 
life-changing experience, if you will. We have twin granddaughters, 
identical twin granddaughters, born at 26 weeks. They will be soon 
celebrating their 10th birthday. So we watched them for 80 days in the 
neonatal intensive care nursery, and the neonatalogist would come by 
every day and say we are not going to stick their heel again today 
because it is too painful and we are going to make sure that we only 
draw blood when it is absolutely necessary. And I, as a physician, 
having delivered many of these premature, immature male infants, offer 
anesthesia before a circumcision procedure. It is required as part of 
an informed consent. So this is what this bill is about. It is informed 
consent carried to its logical extent, and it is an act of compassion.
  I commend the gentleman for the bill because this is simply trying to 
make sure that the informed consent is there. And even the National 
Abortion Rights League does not oppose this bill, and I commend them 
for that.
  I support wholeheartedly the legislation, and I commend 
Representative Smith for this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this bill represents the 
triumph of ideology and politics over science. The Congress of the 
United States is going to tell doctors to give a brochure with 
information that scientists do not believe is accurate. The American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes this bill, and this 
is the professional society of physicians who know the most about the 
care of pregnant women, and they have stated they know of no legitimate 
scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus 
experiences pain. Well, let me repeat that. This organization says they 
know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the 
statement that a fetus experiences pain. So the Congress in this bill 
would tell doctors that they have to inform a woman of something that 
most of these doctors do not believe to be scientifically accurate. It 
is bad enough to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, but to 
tell doctors that they have to give their patients inaccurate medical 
information would not just be meddlesome. It is completely out of line. 
It would be a dangerous precedent where we ask doctors to tell patients 
something that is scientifically not valid in the most personal of 
decisions of people's lives.
  If we really care about women's informed consent, we should not force 
doctors to misinform them.
  I urge opposition to this bill. I regret that we have a scientific 
matter just as we did in other cases like the right to life case in 
Florida where the Congress wants to tell people what to do, not just 
the women but their doctors, and this is an example of ideology and 
politics, not good science informing our decisions. I urge strong 
opposition to the bill.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, recent advances in ultrasound technology have 
shown that unborn babies have the ability to recognize and respond to 
positive and negative stimuli. In fact, researchers, scientists now 
know that unborn children smile and cry. For years doctors have thought 
that babies learn to smile from mimicking their parents. However, 
researchers now know that an unborn child can be seen smiling in the 
womb months before it was thought babies could make such expressions.
  One of the London-based researchers, Dr. Stuart Campbell, said: ``It 
is remarkable that a newborn baby does not smile for about 6 weeks 
after birth. Before birth most babies smile frequently. This may 
indicate a baby's calm, trouble-free existence in the womb, and the 
relatively traumatic first few weeks after the birth when the baby is 
reacting to a strange, new environment.''
  Another group of researchers in New Zealand were testing the effects 
of maternal smoking and drug use on unborn children. The co-author of 
the study, Dr. Edward Mitchell of the University in Auckland, stated 
that the research shows the baby has the necessary sensory and brain 
development to process the offending sound and recognize it as 
something negative.
  Researchers observed deep inhalations and exhalations, open mouth, 
quivering chin, with the low decibel noise on the abdomen. There were 
many experiments that were done, but if unborn children can recognize 
positive and negative stimuli in utero, imagine the excruciating pain 
that must be felt during abortions.
  I urge you to support the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that this bill is on the 
Suspension Calendar, which is normally reserved for bills that are of 
an uncontroversial nature, and it is clear just from the statements 
that have already been made on our side of the aisle that this is a 
very controversial bill. There are a lot of feelings back and forth on 
the issue within the medical community, as has been explained by Mrs. 
Capps and Mr. Waxman. There is a huge controversy over whether there is 
a need for this information and whether or not the type of pain that is 
described actually exists. So I would contend that it really does not 
belong on the Suspension Calendar, and that is the main reason, I 
think, why I would urge Members to vote against the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to 
another physician, Dr. Weldon of Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia 
for yielding.
  I rise to speak in support of this legislation and just raise the 
point, based on my review of the medical literature as a physician and 
these are very well published reports, there is abundant evidence that 
the neuropathways that generate pain responses are present at 20 or 22 
weeks, possibly well before that. Indeed, one of the most well 
respected researchers in this field who is trained in anesthesia and 
pediatrics, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, testified that human fetuses possess 
the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation.

[[Page 22522]]

  I might also add that the new emerging field of fetal surgery, where 
we are actually repairing spina bifida, for example, in unborn babies 
as young as 16 weeks of age, there is actually a textbook about how you 
deliver anesthesia to these babies, and it is recommended and it is 
necessary to prevent movement because they experience pain.
  Now, the other side may quote from a very bad study published in 
JAMA. It was basically published by the abortion industry. To me it was 
a disgrace to the Journal of JAMA that they would actually let 
something like that be published trying to make the contrary claim.
  But I think the scientific evidence is overwhelming and this 
legislation is very, very badly needed. And I applaud the gentleman 
from New Jersey for introducing this bill and the gentleman from 
Georgia for bringing it forward, and I encourage all my colleagues to 
vote in favor of this important legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding.
  As always, I consider it a privilege to address this body and address 
you, Mr. Speaker. Especially I consider it a privilege to address you, 
Mr. Speaker.
  I come to the floor to stand in support of the Unborn Child Pain 
Awareness Act. It is a bit of bizarre debate from my perspective. I 
believe the debate should be on what instant life begins rather than 
how we might kill an unborn baby and especially on how we would avoid 
perhaps inflicting pain on an unborn baby that is about to be killed, 
and I am talking about 20 to 22 weeks and beyond.
  We have a law in this country called the Humane Slaughter Act, which 
says that an animal cannot be slaughtered unless it is rendered 
unconscious in a rather painless way. We also have a law called the 
Animal Welfare Act, which gives the Secretary of Agriculture authority 
to regulate how laboratory animals might be euthanized in a 
compassionate, humane fashion. And we can't raise up an unborn baby to 
this level?
  It is astonishing to me that we are here and that there are people 
that oppose this bill. It is high time it has been brought to the 
floor. It is a baby step, if you will, Mr. Speaker. And I applaud the 
gentleman from New Jersey for being the lead on the Unborn Child Pain 
Awareness Act.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I 
thank Chris Smith for his leadership on many pro-life issues and this 
one specifically.

                              {time}  1145

  I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I would like 
to quote Ronald Reagan, who stated, ``Medical science doctors confirm 
that when the lives of the unborn are snuffed out they often feel pain, 
pain that is long and agonizing.''
  The topic of pain in the unborn, including whether or how early and 
to what extent an unborn baby feels that pain, ignites heated debate. 
Yet 77 percent of individuals who were surveyed not too long ago by 
Zogby indicated that they favored this type of legislation, that 
mothers ought to be aware of the pain that their unborn infants can 
suffer through one of these terrible procedures. And as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, we held hearings on this. And I would 
state unequivocally that I believe that this legislation is 
constitutional, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.
  As Mr. King mentioned, we have laws about slaughtering cattle in this 
country. We are talking about unborn children. Let's protect them. 
Let's let the mothers know the pain that these unborn children could go 
through.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, again, in response to the previous speaker, I think the 
point should be made that right now, under the current law, there's 
nothing to prevent a physician from advising a woman their opinion in 
the manner of pain that might be inflicted on the fetus. The problem is 
that legislation is imposing a mandate, a mandate that is based on 
evidence that simply is not scientifically proven. And that is why we 
have various medical organizations, most notably of course, the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and these are the 
people that are experts on anesthesia. And they say again, I quote, 
``that there is no legitimate scientific data or information that 
supports the view this legislation purports with regard to the pain of 
the fetus.''
  And that is the problem here. This is a mandate, Mr. Speaker, and I 
think it is a mistake to mandate that this be done when the science is 
not clear. And again, this is a bill on the Suspension Calendar. I 
would urge my colleagues to vote against it. We don't know what the 
true science is.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, my Democrat colleague, on the 
other side of the aisle there is making reference, I believe, to a 
study that was done. The lead author of that was Susan Lee, who is a 
lawyer for NARAL. That is not exactly a credible witness.
  And what we have on the other side of the argument, you have Dr. 
Myers and Dr. Bulich. They are authors of the textbook ``Anesthesia for 
Fetal Intervention and Surgery.'' They are professors at Harvard 
Medical School. And what they are explaining is that as we do these 
different routine operations to little children, before they are born, 
what we are doing is we are administering anesthesia because we 
understand that they feel pain. This is common practice in the medical 
community. And I am really amazed that anybody would be opposed to the 
idea of simply giving a mother a choice, a choice as to whether to 
administer anesthesia to her child. I mean, I hear these people. They 
say they are pro-choice, and here is something that is choice, you can 
administer anesthesia; oh, no, we are against that. You might impose on 
giving them this opportunity to administer anesthesia. I can't 
understand why anybody could oppose it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, a great man once said that a 
society is measured by how it treats those in the dawn of life, those 
in the shadows of life, and those in the twilight of life.
  Because they are hidden, both in the dawn and in the shadows of life, 
we kill 400 late-term unborn children every day in America using 
methods that cause such agonizing pain to the child that it would be 
illegal under Federal law if it was done to an animal.
  This bill would call upon abortionists to offer an anesthetic to 
assuage this agony to these children. Mr. Speaker, if we, as a human 
family in America, cannot find that much humanity within ourselves, if 
this human rights atrocity of dismembering our own children alive is 
truly who we are, then the patriot's dream is lost, Mr. Speaker. Those 
lying out in Arlington National Cemetery have died in vain, and 
twilight has fallen upon all of us.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6099, 
The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act introduced by my colleague, 
Congressman Chris Smith.
  This pro-information legislation ensures that women seeking an 
abortion are fully informed of the pain experienced by their unborn 
child at 20 weeks after fertilization.
  In addition, the bill gives a woman the opportunity to request pain 
medication for her child during the abortion procedure.

[[Page 22523]]

  Mr. Speaker, administering pain medication to an unborn child at 20 
weeks of development is not a novel concept. Unborn children undergoing 
surgery in a mother's womb are given an anesthetic directly, and 
premature babies of the same age are given pain relieving drugs during 
medical operations.
  At a minimum, a woman should be given the opportunity to request the 
same pain-easing medication for her unborn child.
  It is time for us to do the right thing and arm women with all of the 
facts on abortion. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read the text of this brochure. As I 
have said before, the problem with this legislation is it is a mandate, 
a mandate that the woman receive this brochure. And then it mandates in 
the legislation what the brochure should consist of. And I won't read 
the whole text, but let me just read part of it. It says, ``There is a 
significant body of evidence that unborn children at 20 weeks after 
fertilization have the physical structures necessary to experience 
pain. There is substantial evidence that at least by this point, unborn 
children draw away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an 
infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain.''
  And then it goes on to say, ``You may request that anesthesia or 
other pain-reducing drugs or drugs are administered directly to the 
pain-capable unborn child if you so desire.''
  And then, ``In some cases, there may be some additional risk to you 
associated with administering such a drug.''
  Now, you know, it is clear here that even the authors of this are not 
saying that this is definitive, only that there is a significant body 
of evidence that there may be pain experienced. And, it is also clear 
that the authors of the legislation understand that there may be some 
additional risk associated to the woman in administering such a drug. 
So again, this is, to think that you are going to mandate this in a 
brochure, when the scientific evidence of the impact on the fetus is 
not clear, and when there is the possibility, a real one, it is 
mentioned in here, that there may be additional risk to the woman, I 
think is just really the wrong thing to do to have this as a mandate 
that something has to be done.
  And again, we are putting it on the Suspension Calendar, which is 
supposedly for noncontroversial measures. And again, I would urge my 
colleagues, we should not be putting this on the Suspension Calendar. 
We should not be mandating something that is not clear and where there 
may actually be additional risk to the woman herself. I think it is 
simply a mistake.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative we take appropriate measures 
to inform every woman who is seeking an abortion of the development of 
the unborn child to feel pain in her womb at least 20 weeks after 
fertilization. We have taken action to ensure that the pain of 
livestock and laboratory animals is reduced and prevented, yet when it 
comes to the unborn child we hesitate.
  Every day unborn children have pain inflicted upon them, such as 
poisoning and even dismemberment, when a woman chooses to abort. All of 
this is without pain medicine. Studies show that fetuses respond to 
touch by 8 weeks' gestation, and respond to sound by 20 weeks. If an 
unborn child can recognize the positive and negative stimuli in the 
womb, I can't imagine the excruciating pain that must be felt during an 
abortion.
  Today women are not fully informed of the extremely painful death 
their child will endure during an abortion. At minimum, we must act to 
ensure that abortion providers are legally obligated to inform every 
woman about her right to request pain-reducing medicine for her baby.
  Life is a gift from God and should be respected. I hope my colleagues 
will join me in recognizing the pain unborn children experience during 
abortion by supporting this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Sekula Gibbs), who is the third 
physician to speak on this issue in favor of the legislation.
  Ms. SEKULA GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Unborn 
Child Pain Awareness Act. This bill is designed to provide information 
to women who are seeking late-term abortions.
  As a physician who believes in the sanctity of life, I would rather 
be voting to ban abortions that are late term, but this bill is a step 
in the right direction.
  And also, as a physician who has practiced for over 20 years, I 
support informed consent, and this is really what the bill is about. It 
is about giving women the information that their unborn fetus can 
experience pain. And the growing body of evidence suggests strongly, 
and this body of evidence is growing and has grown from the time I have 
been in medical school till now, that supports that fetuses do feel 
pain. And it gives women the option, the same kind of option that we 
have whenever our tooth is going to be extracted. Do you want 
anesthesia for that? The same kind of option whenever you have a skin 
biopsy. Do you want anesthesia for that? So it is an informed 
opportunity for the woman to make this decision. And if anesthesia is 
now routinely given to women when their fetus is undergoing surgery, it 
is appropriate to allow them the same choices now.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Again, in response to the previous speaker, and I respect her 
opinion, but there is nothing under the current law that doesn't allow 
a woman to have the option of anesthesia in the manner in which the 
gentlewoman describes. The problem here is that we are mandating that 
they be given a brochure that provides information that is not 
scientifically proven. We are not in any way, neither would I suggest, 
that any woman not be able to opt for that kind of anesthesia. But the 
issue here is whether we should be mandating that they be given a 
brochure that is not at all clear, from a scientific point of view, as 
to whether or not that pain is going to be felt and what the impact 
might be on the woman herself. I just think that what the proponents of 
this bill are suggesting is a mandate for something that is unclear. 
And that is the wrong thing to do in this circumstance. I think it 
creates a lot of confusion on the part of women who are in that 
position, and it should simply be left up to the doctor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would say to Mr. Pallone that I 
am prepared to yield the remaining time to Mr. Smith who will conclude 
the debate on our side, if he has no other speakers.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I could just ask to make a minute 
closing remark myself, and then I will yield back the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say again, and again I 
respect my colleagues, particularly my colleague from New Jersey, who I 
know truly believes in this issue and has spent a great deal of time on 
the issue throughout his career, but I really think that in this case, 
that we are making a huge mistake.
  First of all, this is on the Suspension Calendar. It should not be. 
This is a very controversial issue. It is still a huge controversy in 
the scientific community, and for us to mandate that every woman in 
this situation has to get what may be, in fact, misinformation, I think 
is wrong. And so I would urge my colleagues to vote this bill down, 
that it not be on the Suspension Calendar.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 22524]]


  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to 
Mr. Smith from New Jersey.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Unborn Pain Child Awareness Act is a 
modest but necessary expansion of informed consent. Let me remind my 
colleagues that in State after State throughout the country these 
booklets like the one in my hand that describe fetal development are 
given to the woman prior to an abortion. These kinds of informed 
consent booklets have been vigorously opposed by the abortion lobby, 
and we know for a fact from former as well as current-day abortionists 
do not discuss the baby's pain. They rarely will talk about anything 
that is even remotely connected with the humanity of the unborn child. 
It is just not part of what they convey to the woman.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues that the 2005 JAMA article 
that is being pushed by members and the press has been part of a slick 
disinformation campaign and is true junk science. The authors of that 
study failed to point out that their conflict of interest. Susan Lee is 
a medical student who was previously employed as a lawyer for NARAL, 
and Eleanor Drey, runs the largest abortion clinic in San Francisco, 
where they do 600 D&E or late-term abortions every year, those hideous 
abortions where the baby is dismembered and she has been a very strong 
advocate of partial birth abortion. Eleanor Drey too did not disclose 
as one of the authors of that study her affiliation. Talk about 
conflict of interest, and the study is riddled with holes.
  Finally, what the legislation does, and let us be clear, it just 
requires the informed consent brochure from the Department of Health 
and Human Service and that the mother be given an informed consent form 
to sign.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099, 
the so-called Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. While this bill purports 
to represent the findings of the scientific community, it is merely 
sensationalistic junk science.
  This bill would force doctors to violate their Hippocratic oath by 
mandating that they provide women with incorrect, unsupported 
information. It misleads women into believing that they need general 
anesthesia for an abortion. By glossing over the established risks of 
general anesthesia, this bill puts women's health at risk.
  But don't take my word for it--look to the science. An August 2005, 
Journal of the American Medical Association study states ``for pregnant 
women, general anesthesia is associated with increased morbidity and 
mortality, particularly because of airway-related complications and 
increased risk of hemorrhage from uterine atony.''
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said it best 
in their statement against this bill. ``Requiring a physician to 
provide a patient with information that is not supported by scientific 
fact violates the established doctrine of medical informed consent.''
  As a scientist myself, I am embarrassed that this body would even 
consider something so egregiously devoid of fact and scientific proof--
something that blatantly puts women's health at risk. But I'm not the 
only scientist opposed to this bill.
  The American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Public Health 
Association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the 
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the National 
Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health--to name a few. 
All these groups oppose H.R. 6099. In total there are over 30 
scientific, medical and advocacy organizations that are against this 
bill.
  This bill is nothing but pure political pandering at the expense of 
science and women's health. Let's stop letting politics trump science. 
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, last month, I attended the Supreme Court 
oral arguments on the so-called Partial Birth Abortion bill. You may 
recall that like the bill we have before us today, that bill included 
Congressional findings that found no basis in medical fact or science. 
The bill we are debating today is pseudoscience. The American College 
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in consultation with physicians who 
are experts in fetal anesthesia and fetal surgery, knows of no 
legitimate scientific data or information that supports the statement 
that a fetus experiences pain. Requiring a physician to provide a 
patient with information that is not supported by scientific fact 
violates the established doctrine of medical informed consent. This 
bill is a clear attempt by the current antichoice majority to once 
again chip away at a woman's right to choose.
  H.R. 6099 does not inform women who are seeking abortions, it 
misinforms them. It forces doctors and nurses to distribute a brochure 
filled with biased language written by anti-choice politicians, most of 
whom have no medical experience. This bill has nothing to do with 
improving women's healthcare or increasing access to medical 
information. It is just one more attempt for politicians to impose 
themselves on the unique and important doctor-patient relationship, 
which should remain private.
  Mr. Speaker, in these last days of the 109th Congress, the anti-
choice majority is lobbing a parting shot at American women. We 
shouldn't be wasting our time on bills that impede access to healthcare 
and impose further burdens on women seeking abortions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 6099, a bill where the 
science is unproven and the result is harmful.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099 because I 
believe it is a woman's choice whether to terminate a pregnancy, and 
oppose legislation requiring health care practitioners to tell a 
patient information that may or may not be true.
  I am concerned about the precedent we are setting by having the 
Federal Government mandate by law the medical advice doctors offer 
their patients. It seems to me the last thing physicians want or need 
is more federal intrusion into their practices.
  I support a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy 
subject to the restrictions of Roe v. Wade. Abortion is a very personal 
decision. While a woman's doctor, clergy, friends, family and public 
officials may have an opinion, the ultimate decision rests solely with 
her. I would like to see abortion remain safe and legal, yet rare.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to 
champion the principle of informed consent, which should concern each 
and every one of us here today. I also want to thank Mr. Smith yet 
again for his courageous and tireless dedication to the most vulnerable 
persons among us, the unborn. His leadership on human rights is a 
constant inspiration.
  For over 30 years, our society has been torn apart by the issue of 
abortion. There may be very few of us who have not been affected by the 
emotional and physical pain of abortion, as experienced by millions of 
women, children, and families throughout the country.
  Modern therapeutic and diagnostic technologies make it increasingly 
more difficult to deny the essential humanness of unborn children. 
These technologies and sound, scientific research have enabled us to 
conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that unborn children are able to 
experience excruciating pain from 20 weeks of gestation.
  It is my hope that one day we will all choose to open our hearts and 
minds to the unborn and face the reality of abortion for what it is. 
Until that day, let us at the very least work to ensure that women are 
given the medical facts about fetal pain. Women deserve this respect.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are apparently so concerned about 
the pain of unborn children that they are willing to promote junk 
science and have Congress dictate the contents of a brochure given to 
all women seeking to have an abortion. Where is the sense of urgency 
for children once they are actually born? What has this Congress done 
to address increasing rates of child poverty and hunger, decreasing 
access to health care, and the abysmal state of education and child 
care in this country?
  Inevitably, my Republican colleagues say it's a ``state issue'' or 
that there's not enough evidence that federal action would work. I 
guess this bill proves that if the issue is important enough to the 
Christian Right, federalism and evidence get tossed aside. If only the 
needs of children or the demands of voters had similar power to break 
through right wing ideology. This is a fitting end to the Congress that 
found the time to meddle with Terri Schiavo and vote against the 
fabricated war on Christmas but couldn't make time to finish nine 
appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, the jig is up on this pathetic excuse for governing. 
Let's begin a new direction for America by voting against this divisive 
bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which purports to provide women 
important information related to their health, but instead will 
substitute ideology for scientific evidence.

[[Page 22525]]

  The House of Representatives is again legislating morals and is 
poking its nose where it doesn't belong.
  This bill will require that family planning providers inform a 
patient seeking a legal abortion after 20 weeks that there is 
``substantial evidence'' that a fetus may feel pain during an abortion 
procedure.
  These women would be required to read and sign a form drafted by 
Congress, which states that ``there is substantial evidence'' that the 
abortion will cause pain to the fetus and they will be offered 
medications intended to reduce pain administered directly to the fetus.
  There is an ongoing debate in the scientific community on this issue. 
Many scientists believe that there is too little information on the 
effectiveness of medications administered directly to a fetus.
  In fact, a federal court found in 2004, ``the issue of a fetus 
feeling pain is unsettled in the scientific community . . . there is no 
consensus of medical opinion on this issue,'' and ``much of the debate 
is based upon speculation and inference.''
  Proponents of this bill are claiming compassion for the unborn and 
using biased ``scientific'' information to prove their misguided 
ideology.
  What would be compassionate is for this body to consider legislation 
such as the Prevention First Act, which would help to reduce the number 
of unintended pregnancies.
  This is what we should be considering.
  In reality, the goal of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is not 
one based on compassion.
  The goal is to undermine a woman's right to choose and to make what 
is a difficult decision for many women, increasingly more difficult.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote against this measure.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6099, 
the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. H.R. 6099 is another heavy-handed 
attempt by the majority to intrude into the doctor-patient 
relationship. This legislation would proscribe a consent form that 
states as medical fact unsubstantiated studies which have no consensus 
in the medical community.
  This legislation is meant to further undermine the U.S. Supreme 
Court's Roe vs. Wade decision regarding a woman's right to privacy and 
her ability to make personal medical decisions. Once again, instead of 
allowing a controversial bill such as this one full and clear debate, 
the House leadership is trying to sneak one by the American people on 
one of the last days of a lame-duck session in a desperate attempt to 
score political points with those factions who wish to deprive women of 
their rights. And by putting it on the Suspension Calendar, they have 
denied Members the opportunity to offer substantive amendments on these 
important issues.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation so that we may 
consider it, as well as substantive amendments that could improve it, 
in the 110th Congress.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099, the 
Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. I would point out that, despite the 
best efforts of some in this Chamber and from various interest groups 
to masquerade this as a pro-choice or pro-life issue, this is not about 
choice. This is quite simply an issue of who is qualified to provide 
medical information to patients: Congress or doctors? Frankly, patients 
are better served with medical information coming from a qualified 
medical professional than from a simple Polish lawyer from Southeast 
Michigan like myself.
  Let me be clear: this bill requires that doctors provide women 
seeking an abortion past the twentieth week of gestation a brochure 
produced by the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill very 
clearly requires that the brochure include text written word for word 
by Congress. The patient would then have to sign a document saying she 
received the information. That document, again, would contain specific 
text written by Congress. The very idea that Congress would require 
that specific text imparting a medical opinion be handed out to 
patients is ludicrous. We are in the business of writing laws, not of 
keeping up on the most recent articles published in medical journals. I 
would ask, Mr. Speaker, where does this game of Congress playing doctor 
end? Will we next be writing scripts or brochures advocating for one 
chemotherapy treatment over another for cancer patients? I think not. I 
believe that most of us recognize that this is well beyond our 
capability as lawmakers.
  Mr. Speaker, let's leave the decisions about medical science to the 
scholars and professionals who are qualified to make them and focus on 
our responsibilities as Members of Congress.
  I've always wondered why we don't focus more of our attention on 
preventing unwanted pregnancies. Reducing the number of abortions 
performed in this country is certainly a goal we can all agree on and 
strive for. Instead of imposing ourselves on private relationships 
between doctors and patients, I hope that my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle will come to the table to discuss how we can further this 
mutual goal.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Unborn Child Pain 
Awareness Act. This legislation is based on the scientifically 
unsubstantiated assertion that a fetus feels pain at 20 weeks of 
pregnancy.
  This is not the first time this Congress that Members have been asked 
to substitute our judgment for that of scientists or physicians. It is 
bad policy for Congress to substitute its opinion for the considered 
medical judgment of doctors and I have consistently opposed legislation 
that does this.
  By passing this legislation, Congress will force doctors to provide 
information to patients that is not scientifically proven to be true. 
These doctors will be subject to fines if they do not provide women 
with a brochure published by the Department of Health and Human 
Services explaining that a fetus feels pain at 20-weeks and that 
administrating anesthesia for the fetus will reduce pain. The bill goes 
so far as to outline for the Department of Health and Human Services 
what must be included in the brochure. The language that this bill 
requires HHS to include in the brochure asserts that there is 
conclusive scientific evidence that a fetus feels pain. According to 
the legislation, the brochure must read: ``There is a significant body 
of evidence that unborn children at 20 weeks after fertilization have 
the physical structures necessary to experience pain. There is 
substantial evidence that at least by this point, unborn children draw 
away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an 
adult would be interpreted as a response to pain. There is substantial 
evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the 
unborn child pain, even though you receive a pain-reducing drug or 
drugs.'' This is, at best, misleading. We should not use legislative 
language to interpret scientific data that we do not understand and to 
direct physicians in their considered professional practice.
  In August 2005 a literature review in the Journal of the American 
Medical Association concluded that ``evidence regarding the capacity 
for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain 
is unlikely before the third trimester.'' The review also concludes 
that administering ``fetal anesthesia or analgesia should not be 
recommended or routinely offered for abortion because current 
experimental techniques provide unknown fetal benefit and may increase 
risks for the woman.''
  As policymakers, we should consider very seriously our actions that 
may overstep what is scientifically proven. In formulating public 
policy on scientific issues like global warming, stem cell research, 
alternative energy, and others, it is essential that we use science as 
a basis for legislation and not use legislation to attempt to make 
science.
  I oppose this legislation because I believe that the decision of 
whether to have a baby should be left to individuals, their doctors, 
and their families without interference from the Government. I also 
oppose this legislation because of its circumvention of scientific 
evidence.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6099.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to H.R. 6099.
  H.R. 6099 is an extreme intrusion into the relationship between a 
woman and her doctor. Rather than improving informed consent as the 
authors claim, this legislation would put into federal law inflammatory 
rhetoric that has not been proven to be fact.
  In 2004 a federal district court found that there is ``no consensus 
of medical opinion'' on the issue of fetal pain. According to the 
Journal of the American Medical Association, it is highly improbable 
that a fetus could feel pain before the third trimester. In addition, 
studies conducted by JAMA on this issue showed that additional 
anesthesia, as is proposed in this bill, poses increased risk to a 
woman's health.
  Yet this bill would force health care providers to tell patients 
seeking an abortion that there is ``substantial evidence'' regarding 
fetal pain and force them to offer anesthesia for the fetus. It would 
also force the patient to sign a statement to prove she understood that 
information.
  H.R. 6099, if passed, would actually require a medical professional, 
under federal law, to give women inaccurate and potentially harmful 
information. This law makes no exceptions for individual patient 
circumstances or a doctor's judgment of medical necessity. And if a 
doctor does not provide this information, he or she will face civil 
sanctions.
  Our health care system--the best in the world by many measures--
depends on the

[[Page 22526]]

quality of our health care providers and their ability to communicate 
with and care for their patients. It is outrageous for Congress to 
remove the discretion of doctors and instead, rely on politics to make 
medical decisions. This legislation is based on inaccurate information 
and political motivation and should be rejected.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 6099 today and in 
working to improve health care for all Americans in the 110th Congress.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this inflammatory 
and misleading piece of legislation.
  The bill before us requires that women seeking abortions be given a 
brochure written by Congress regarding the capability of a developing 
fetus to feel pain. It requires physicians to provide this script to 
their patients even if the doctor does not believe it to be accurate or 
in the patient's best interest.
  The text of this brochure was not written by or in consultation with 
the nation's leading physicians. In fact, the sponsor's attempt to 
impose his values on every woman seeking an abortion in this country is 
opposed by many physician organizations, including the American College 
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Physician 
Assistants, the American Public Health Association, and the National 
Association of Nurse Practitioners.
  This bill is one last attempt in this Congress to use the emotional, 
complicated subject of abortion as a cloak for what the sponsors of 
this bill consistently do: manipulate medical practice and scientific 
research to conform to their own beliefs and moral agenda.
  And when science doesn't support their rhetoric, instead of opening 
their minds and acting from a place of compassion, they attack 
physicians who disagree with them, demonize women and families who make 
the decision about abortion, and deny evidence-based medicine.
  It is just this kind of extreme interference in Americans' lives and 
their medical care that voters around the nation rejected--decisively--
on Election Day.
  Americans look to us to examine issues thoroughly and with great 
care, befitting the high honor it is to serve in this body. Passing 
this bill won't do a single thing to advance the cause we should all 
share: to create a country, a society and a culture where every 
pregnancy is intended and every child is wanted, prepared for and 
cherished.
  Congress has no right to legislate how doctors care for their 
patients, to substitute ideology for scientific evidence, or to 
penalize physicians for legal and responsible patient care.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and this approach to an 
issue that's difficult for many of us. There is another way and, I 
would suggest, a better way to help the families of this country have 
healthy pregnancies and strong families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 6099.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those voting have responded in the affirmative.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________