[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12845-12854]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 3803) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia, and 
for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3803

       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 ``District of Columbia Pain-
     Capable Unborn Child Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.

       Congress finds and declares the following:
       (1) Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout the 
     unborn child's entire body and nerves link these receptors to 
     the brain's thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than 
     20 weeks after fertilization.
       (2) By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts 
     to touch. After 20 weeks, the unborn child reacts to stimuli 
     that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult 
     human, for example, by recoiling.
       (3) In the unborn child, application of such painful 
     stimuli is associated with significant increases in stress 
     hormones known as the stress response.
       (4) Subjection to such painful stimuli is associated with 
     long-term harmful neurodevelopmental effects, such as altered 
     pain sensitivity and, possibly, emotional, behavioral, and 
     learning disabilities later in life.
       (5) For the purposes of surgery on unborn children, fetal 
     anesthesia is routinely administered and is associated with a 
     decrease in stress hormones compared to their level when 
     painful stimuli are applied without such anesthesia.
       (6) The position, asserted by some medical experts, that 
     the unborn child is incapable of experiencing pain until a 
     point later in pregnancy than 20 weeks after fertilization 
     predominately rests on the assumption that the ability to 
     experience pain depends on the cerebral cortex and requires 
     nerve connections between the thalamus and the cortex. 
     However, recent medical research and analysis, especially 
     since 2007, provides strong evidence for the conclusion that 
     a functioning cortex is not necessary to experience pain.
       (7) Substantial evidence indicates that children born 
     missing the bulk of the cerebral cortex, those with 
     hydranencephaly, nevertheless experience pain.
       (8) In adult humans and in animals, stimulation or ablation 
     of the cerebral cortex does not alter pain perception, while 
     stimulation or ablation of the thalamus does.
       (9) Substantial evidence indicates that structures used for 
     pain processing in early development differ from those of 
     adults, using different neural elements available at specific 
     times during development, such as the subcortical plate, to 
     fulfill the role of pain processing.
       (10) The position, asserted by some commentators, that the 
     unborn child remains in a coma-like sleep state that 
     precludes the unborn child experiencing pain is inconsistent 
     with the documented reaction of unborn children to painful 
     stimuli and with the experience of fetal surgeons who have 
     found it necessary to sedate the unborn child with anesthesia 
     to prevent the unborn child from engaging in vigorous 
     movement in reaction to invasive surgery.
       (11) Consequently, there is substantial medical evidence 
     that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least 
     by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier.
       (12) It is the purpose of the Congress to assert a 
     compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of 
     unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical 
     evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain.
       (13) The compelling governmental interest in protecting the 
     lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial 
     medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling 
     pain is intended to be separate from and independent of the 
     compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of 
     unborn children from the stage of viability, and neither 
     governmental interest is intended to replace the other.
       (14) The District Council of the District of Columbia, 
     operating under authority delegated by Congress, repealed the 
     entire District law limiting abortions, effective April 29, 
     2004, so that in the District of Columbia, abortion is now 
     legal, for any reason, until the moment of birth.
       (15) Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
     States of America provides that the Congress shall ``exercise 
     exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever'' over the 
     District established as the seat of government of the United 
     States, now known as the District of Columbia. The 
     constitutional responsibility for the protection of pain-
     capable unborn children within the Federal District resides 
     with the Congress.

     SEC. 3. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD 
                   PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 74 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 1532. District of Columbia pain-capable unborn child 
       protection

       ``(a) Unlawful Conduct.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, including any legislation of the District 
     of Columbia under authority delegated by Congress, it shall 
     be unlawful for any person to perform an abortion within the 
     District of Columbia, or attempt to do so, unless in 
     conformity with the requirements set forth in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Requirements for Abortions.--
       ``(1) The physician performing or attempting the abortion 
     shall first make a determination of the probable post-
     fertilization age of the unborn child or reasonably rely upon 
     such a determination made by another physician. In making 
     such a determination, the physician shall make such inquiries 
     of the pregnant woman and perform or cause to be performed 
     such medical examinations and tests as a reasonably prudent 
     physician, knowledgeable about the case and the medical 
     conditions involved, would consider necessary to make an 
     accurate determination of post-fertilization age.
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
     abortion shall not be performed or attempted, if the probable 
     post-fertilization age, as determined under paragraph (1), of 
     the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater.
       ``(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), subparagraph (A) does 
     not apply if, in reasonable medical judgment, the abortion is 
     necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is 
     endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or 
     physical injury, including a life-endangering physical 
     condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but 
     not including psychological or emotional conditions.
       ``(C) Notwithstanding the definitions of `abortion' and 
     `attempt an abortion' in this section, a physician 
     terminating or attempting to terminate a pregnancy under the 
     exception provided by subparagraph (B) may do so only in the 
     manner which, in reasonable medical judgment, provides the 
     best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in 
     reasonable medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in 
     that manner would pose a greater risk of--
       ``(i) the death of the pregnant woman; or
       ``(ii) the substantial and irreversible physical impairment 
     of a major bodily function, not including psychological or 
     emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman;

     than would other available methods.
       ``(c) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever violates subsection (a) 
     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more 
     than 2 years, or both.
       ``(d) Bar to Prosecution.--A woman upon whom an abortion in 
     violation of subsection (a) is performed or attempted may not 
     be prosecuted under, or for a conspiracy to violate, 
     subsection (a), or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 
     based on such a violation.
       ``(e) Civil Remedies.--
       ``(1) Civil action by woman on whom the abortion is 
     performed.--A woman upon whom an abortion has been performed 
     or attempted in violation of subsection (a), may in a civil 
     action against any person who engaged in the violation obtain 
     appropriate relief.
       ``(2) Civil action by relatives.--The father of an unborn 
     child who is the subject of an abortion performed or 
     attempted in violation of subsection (a), or a maternal 
     grandparent of the unborn child if the pregnant woman is an 
     unemancipated minor, may in a civil action against any person 
     who engaged in the violation, obtain appropriate relief, 
     unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal 
     conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
       ``(3) Appropriate relief.--Appropriate relief in a civil 
     action under this subsection includes--
       ``(A) objectively verifiable money damages for all 
     injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the 
     violation of this section;
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of 
     the abortion; and
       ``(C) punitive damages.
       ``(4) Injunctive relief.--
       ``(A) In general.--A qualified plaintiff may in a civil 
     action obtain injunctive relief to prevent an abortion 
     provider from performing or attempting further abortions in 
     violation of this section.

[[Page 12846]]

       ``(B) Definition.--In this paragraph the term `qualified 
     plaintiff' means--
       ``(i) a woman upon whom an abortion is performed or 
     attempted in violation of this section;
       ``(ii) any person who is the spouse, parent, sibling or 
     guardian of, or a current or former licensed health care 
     provider of, that woman; or
       ``(iii) the United States Attorney for the District of 
     Columbia.
       ``(5) Attorneys fees for plaintiff.--The court shall award 
     a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs to a 
     prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection.
       ``(6) Attorneys fees for defendant.--If a defendant in a 
     civil action under this section prevails and the court finds 
     that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous and brought in bad 
     faith, the court shall also render judgment for a reasonable 
     attorney's fee in favor of the defendant against the 
     plaintiff.
       ``(7) Awards against woman.--Except under paragraph (6), in 
     a civil action under this subsection, no damages, attorney's 
     fee or other monetary relief may be assessed against the 
     woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted.
       ``(f) Protection of Privacy in Court Proceedings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except to the extent the Constitution or 
     other similarly compelling reason requires, in every civil or 
     criminal action under this section, the court shall make such 
     orders as are necessary to protect the anonymity of any woman 
     upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted if she 
     does not give her written consent to such disclosure. Such 
     orders may be made upon motion, but shall be made sua sponte 
     if not otherwise sought by a party.
       ``(2) Orders to parties, witnesses, and counsel.--The court 
     shall issue appropriate orders under paragraph (1) to the 
     parties, witnesses, and counsel and shall direct the sealing 
     of the record and exclusion of individuals from courtrooms or 
     hearing rooms to the extent necessary to safeguard her 
     identity from public disclosure. Each such order shall be 
     accompanied by specific written findings explaining why the 
     anonymity of the woman must be preserved from public 
     disclosure, why the order is essential to that end, how the 
     order is narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and why no 
     reasonable less restrictive alternative exists.
       ``(3) Pseudonym required.--In the absence of written 
     consent of the woman upon whom an abortion has been performed 
     or attempted, any party, other than a public official, who 
     brings an action under paragraphs (1), (2), or (4) of 
     subsection (e) shall do so under a pseudonym.
       ``(4) Limitation.--This subsection shall not be construed 
     to conceal the identity of the plaintiff or of witnesses from 
     the defendant or from attorneys for the defendant.
       ``(g) Reporting.--
       ``(1) Duty to report.--Any physician who performs or 
     attempts an abortion within the District of Columbia shall 
     report that abortion to the relevant District of Columbia 
     health agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
     `health agency') on a schedule and in accordance with forms 
     and regulations prescribed by the health agency.
       ``(2) Contents of report.--The report shall include the 
     following:
       ``(A) Post-fertilization age.--For the determination of 
     probable postfertilization age of the unborn child, whether 
     ultrasound was employed in making the determination, and the 
     week of probable post-fertilization age that was determined.
       ``(B) Method of abortion.--Which of the following methods 
     or combination of methods was employed:
       ``(i) Dilation, dismemberment, and evacuation of fetal 
     parts also known as `dilation and evacuation'.
       ``(ii) Intra-amniotic instillation of saline, urea, or 
     other substance (specify substance) to kill the unborn child, 
     followed by induction of labor.
       ``(iii) Intracardiac or other intra-fetal injection of 
     digoxin, potassium chloride, or other substance (specify 
     substance) intended to kill the unborn child, followed by 
     induction of labor.
       ``(iv) Partial-birth abortion, as defined in section 1531.
       ``(v) Manual vacuum aspiration without other methods.
       ``(vi) Electrical vacuum aspiration without other methods.
       ``(vii) Abortion induced by use of mifepristone in 
     combination with misoprostol.
       ``(viii) If none of the methods described in the other 
     clauses of this subparagraph was employed, whatever method 
     was employed.
       ``(C) Age of woman.--The age or approximate age of the 
     pregnant woman.
       ``(D) Compliance with requirements for exception.--The 
     facts relied upon and the basis for any determinations 
     required to establish compliance with the requirements for 
     the exception provided by subsection (b)(2).
       ``(3) Exclusions from reports.--
       ``(A) A report required under this subsection shall not 
     contain the name or the address of the woman whose pregnancy 
     was terminated, nor shall the report contain any other 
     information identifying the woman.
       ``(B) Such report shall contain a unique Medical Record 
     Number, to enable matching the report to the woman's medical 
     records.
       ``(C) Such reports shall be maintained in strict confidence 
     by the health agency, shall not be available for public 
     inspection, and shall not be made available except--
       ``(i) to the United States Attorney for the District of 
     Columbia or that Attorney's delegate for a criminal 
     investigation or a civil investigation of conduct that may 
     violate this section; or
       ``(ii) pursuant to court order in an action under 
     subsection (e).
       ``(4) Public report.--Not later than June 30 of each year 
     beginning after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the 
     health agency shall issue a public report providing 
     statistics for the previous calendar year compiled from all 
     of the reports made to the health agency under this 
     subsection for that year for each of the items listed in 
     paragraph (2). The report shall also provide the statistics 
     for all previous calendar years during which this section was 
     in effect, adjusted to reflect any additional information 
     from late or corrected reports. The health agency shall take 
     care to ensure that none of the information included in the 
     public reports could reasonably lead to the identification of 
     any pregnant woman upon whom an abortion was performed or 
     attempted.
       ``(5) Failure to submit report.--
       ``(A) Late fee.--Any physician who fails to submit a report 
     not later than 30 days after the date that report is due 
     shall be subject to a late fee of $1,000 for each additional 
     30-day period or portion of a 30-day period the report is 
     overdue.
       ``(B) Court order to comply.--A court of competent 
     jurisdiction may, in a civil action commenced by the health 
     agency, direct any physician whose report under this 
     subsection is still not filed as required, or is incomplete, 
     more than 180 days after the date the report was due, to 
     comply with the requirements of this section under penalty of 
     civil contempt.
       ``(C) Disciplinary action.--Intentional or reckless failure 
     by any physician to comply with any requirement of this 
     subsection, other than late filing of a report, constitutes 
     sufficient cause for any disciplinary sanction which the 
     Health Professional Licensing Administration of the District 
     of Columbia determines is appropriate, including suspension 
     or revocation of any license granted by the Administration.
       ``(6) Forms and regulations.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, the health agency 
     shall prescribe forms and regulations to assist in compliance 
     with this subsection.
       ``(7) Effective date of requirement.--Paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection takes effect with respect to all abortions 
     performed on and after the first day of the first calendar 
     month beginning after the effective date of such forms and 
     regulations.
       ``(h) 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 otherwise intentionally terminate the pregnancy of 
     a woman known to be pregnant with an intention other than to 
     increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the 
     life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a 
     dead unborn child who died as the result of natural causes in 
     utero, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the 
     pregnant woman or her unborn child, and which causes the 
     premature termination of the pregnancy.
       ``(2) Attempt an abortion.--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 in the District of Columbia.
       ``(3) Fertilization.--The term `fertilization' means the 
     fusion of human spermatozoon with a human ovum.
       ``(4) Health agency.--The term `health agency' means the 
     Department of Health of the District of Columbia or any 
     successor agency responsible for the regulation of medical 
     practice.
       ``(5) Perform.--The term `perform', with respect to an 
     abortion, includes induce an abortion through a medical or 
     chemical intervention including writing a prescription for a 
     drug or device intended to result in an abortion.
       ``(6) Physician.--The term `physician' means a person 
     licensed to practice medicine and surgery or osteopathic 
     medicine and surgery, or otherwise licensed to legally 
     perform an abortion.
       ``(7) Post-fertilization age.--The term `post-fertilization 
     age' means the age of the unborn child as calculated from the 
     fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum.
       ``(8) Probable post-fertilization age of the unborn 
     child.--The term `probable post-fertilization age of the 
     unborn child' means what, in reasonable medical judgment, 
     will with reasonable probability be the postfertilization age 
     of the unborn child at the time the abortion is planned to be 
     performed or induced.
       ``(9) Reasonable medical judgment.--The term `reasonable 
     medical judgment' means a medical judgment that would be made 
     by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the 
     case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the 
     medical conditions involved.
       ``(10) Unborn child.--The term `unborn child' means an 
     individual organism of the species homo sapiens, beginning at 
     fertilization, until the point of being born alive as defined 
     in section 8(b) of title 1.
       ``(11) Unemancipated minor.--The term `unemancipated minor' 
     means a minor who is subject to the control, authority, and 
     supervision of a parent or guardian, as determined under the 
     law of the State in which the minor resides.
       ``(12) Woman.--The term `woman' means a female human being 
     whether or not she has reached the age of majority.''.

[[Page 12847]]

       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1532. District of Columbia pain-capable unborn child protection.''.

       (c) Chapter Heading Amendments.--
       (1) Chapter heading in chapter.--The chapter heading for 
     chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS'' and inserting 
     ``ABORTIONS''.
       (2) Table of chapters for part i.--The item relating to 
     chapter 74 in the table of chapters at the beginning of part 
     I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``Partial-Birth Abortions'' and inserting ``Abortions''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3803, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gruesome late-term abortions of unborn children who 
can feel pain is the greatest human rights atrocity in the United 
States today. H.R. 3803, the bipartisan District of Columbia Pain-
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, has more than 220 cosponsors in 
the House of Representatives. It protects unborn children who have 
reached 20 weeks' development, their being subjected to inhumane 
torturous late-term abortions on the basis that the unborn child feels 
pain by at least this stage of development, if not much earlier. Just 2 
days ago, a Federal court upheld Arizona's version of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout America's history, the hearts of the American 
people have always been moved with compassion when they discover a 
theretofore hidden class of victims once the humanity of the victim and 
the inhumanity of what was being done to them finally became clear in 
their minds. Mr. Speaker, America is on the cusp of another such 
realization.
  Medical science regarding the development of unborn babies and their 
capacities at various stages of growth has advanced dramatically, and 
incontrovertibly it demonstrates that unborn children clearly do 
experience pain. The single greatest hurdle to legislation like H.R. 
3803 has always been that deponents deny unborn babies feel pain at 
all, as if somehow the ability to feel pain magically develops 
instantaneously as a child passes through the birth canal. This level 
of deliberate ignorance might have found excuse in earlier eras of 
human history, but the evidence today is extensive and irrefutable. 
Unborn children have the capacity to experience pain by at least 20 
weeks and very likely substantially earlier.
  We have entered into the committee hearing record a 29-page summary 
of the dozens of studies worldwide confirming that unborn children feel 
pain by at least 20 weeks post-fertilization. This information is 
available at www.DoctorsonFetalPain.org. And I would sincerely 
recommend that all committee members, their staff, and the members of 
the press review this site to get the most current evidence on unborn 
pain rather than to have their understanding cemented in some earlier 
time when scientists still believed in spontaneous generation and that 
the Earth was flat.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. Speaker, late-term abortions are gruesome and painful. Babies are 
dismembered, or they're chemically burned alive by a hypertonic salt 
solution. Some late-term abortionists stab the small pain-capable baby 
through the chest to inject drugs that will kill the child prior to 
being removed.
  Most Americans think that late-term abortions are rare, but in fact 
there are approximately 120,000 late-term abortions annually, or more 
than 325 late-term abortions every day in America.
  Here in the District of Columbia, the designated seat of freedom in 
America, abortion is completely legal for any reason up until the 
moment of birth. Under the Constitution, the Congress and the President 
are the ones clearly responsible for this unthinkable abortion-until-
birth policy.
  This landmark vote we are about to take would be the first time in 
history that the United States House of Representatives has ever voted 
on this question of whether to endorse legal abortion for any reason up 
until birth, and, ladies and gentlemen, we will be held accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, under the Humane Slaughter Act, farm animals in America 
have protection from completely unnecessary cruelty, yet unborn 
children in America have no such protection from the same kind of 
agonizing pain. In fact, there is no legal standard to provide that 
late-term unborn babies--clearly known to be capable of feeling pain--
are afforded even the most basic human decency of receiving anesthesia 
before they are torturously killed.
  Mr. Speaker, if we cannot find the will or the courage to protect 
human babies from being tortured, then what claim on human compassion 
remains to us?
  What we are doing to babies is real, Mr. Speaker. It is barbaric in 
the purest sense of the word. It is the greatest human rights violation 
occurring on U.S. soil, and it has already victimized potentially 
millions of pain-capable babies since the Supreme Court gave us all 
abortion on demand that tragic day in 1973.
  Mr. Speaker, I would plead with my colleagues to vote for this bill 
to at least begin to end this heartbreak of painful late-term abortion 
in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I will begin this discussion by asking the gentleman from Arizona, 
Mr. Trent Franks, this question: Why is this measure limited only to 
women in the District of Columbia? And I yield to him for a response if 
he chooses to make one.
  Then I will now go on with my statement.
  The majority of this House, conservatives, can think of nothing 
better to do than to continue to wage a war against women and take up 
our time with these divisive issues. Here, we face the worst of 
economic crisis since the 1930s. So this is another attempt, yet 
another attempt, to undermine women's basic reproductive rights with 
appeals to ideology rather than to sound science.
  Every pregnancy is unique and different, and, unfortunately, some 
women face difficult and emotionally devastating decisions in the 
course of their pregnancy that would require them to consider abortion 
as a health option. So we gather here this afternoon to recognize that 
this legislation is not needed, is opposed by the Nation's leading 
civil rights organizations, including: the Physicians for Reproductive 
Choice and Health, the Center for Reproductive Rights, NARAL Pro-Choice 
America, the National Abortion Federation, the American Civil Liberties 
Union, and Catholics for Choice.
  With that opening, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), chair of the Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, first in response to the good gentleman 
from the other side, article I, section 8, clause 17, called the 
District Clause, gives us authority for this bill.
  But I really want to point out why this bill is so important. One of 
the things that upsets a great deal of Americans--in fact, over 60 
percent of all Americans, 70 percent of women--is when a baby 
experiences pain. And when you ask Americans about abortions and a baby 
feeling pain with an abortion, well over 60 percent say they do not 
want that abortion.
  The kind of abortions that are occurring are occurring up until the 
point of

[[Page 12848]]

where a child can actually come out normally, after 9 months' 
gestation. And it's called a D&E, or a dilation and extraction. It is a 
painful procedure that requires dismemberment of the unborn child and 
the crushing of its head.
  We know that as early as 20 weeks--maybe even as early as 8 weeks--an 
unborn child feels pain. We know it is at 20 weeks. Now, there is a 
question of 8 weeks. And yet at 9 months, this very normal child inside 
of a body is feeling pain. This is why we are going to ask Congress to 
stop this horrific act.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentlelady that we have 
jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, but we do not have the 
prerogative to produce unconstitutional programs for them like H.R. 
3803.
  I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New 
York, Jerrold Nadler, the former chairman of the Constitution Committee 
of the Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the D.C. Abortion Ban Act.
  This legislation is a flagrantly unconstitutional attack on the right 
of women to make the most fundamental decisions about their lives and 
their health. It is based on radical ideology rather than on long-
established Supreme Court precedent or on sound science, and it is yet 
another attack on the right to self-government of the Americans who 
live, work, and pay taxes in our Nation's Capital. It is, in short, yet 
another example of the Republican war on women and of their fundamental 
hostility to democracy when the voters have the audacity to disagree 
with Republican orthodox.
  And why are we here today, playing abortion politics with a bill 
everyone knows will not pass the Senate, when millions of Americans are 
out of a job and the Republican majority can't find a moment to 
consider a single one of the President's jobs bills?
  The constitutional rule is clear: The government may not tell a woman 
whether or not she may have an abortion before fetal viability. This 
bill prohibits abortions much earlier. This bill does not even have an 
exception to protect women's health, another constitutional violation.
  We don't have to guess how this kind of extreme legislation plays 
out. We know from States which have enacted similar laws. Take the case 
of Danielle Deaver, a Nebraska woman who was 22 weeks pregnant when her 
water broke. Doctors informed her that her fetus would likely be born 
with undeveloped lungs and not be able to survive outside the womb 
because all the amniotic fluid had drained, the tiny growing fetus 
slowly would be crushed by the uterus walls.
  During her pregnancy, Nebraska enacted a law similar to this bill. As 
a result, Ms. Deaver could not obtain an abortion. Thus, despite 
serious complications and enduring infections, Danielle had to continue 
her pregnancy. On December 8, 2010, Danielle delivered a 1 pound, 10 
ounce child who survived only 15 minutes outside the womb.
  The question of fetal pain is a difficult one, but Members need to 
understand that the argument being made by the proponents of this bill, 
that a 20-week fetus can feel pain, is a fringe one denied by the bulk 
of the scientific community. Scientists will continue to debate and 
study, but we should not write marginal views into the criminal code.
  We also need to remember that this bill targets only the District of 
Columbia, which some on the other side of the aisle like to treat like 
a colony. It is outrageous that we would be considering a bill that 
Members are clearly not willing to apply to their own constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that the Republican leadership stop diverting 
the attention of this House from the business of putting people back to 
work by bringing up one divisive, unconstitutional bill after another.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this cynical, dangerous, misogynist, 
and unconstitutional legislation.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris), a member of the Science Committee 
and an obstetric anesthesiologist.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time 
to me.
  I will tell you the argument that this is unconstitutional just isn't 
true. I urge the Members on the other side of the aisle who oppose the 
measure to read Judge Teilborg's opinion, just having been released, 
where he goes very carefully and says this doesn't prohibit abortions 
after 20 weeks, it limits them, clearly within the purview of Roe v. 
Wade and the subsequent case law, where the Gonzalez case says, for 
instance:

       Government uses its voice and regulatory authority to show 
     its profound respect for the life within the woman.

  Now, the Flat Earth Society on the other side would have you believe 
that no medical advances have been made in pain and the perception of 
pain since Roe v. Wade has been issued. But, in fact, they have. About 
15 years ago, a huge discussion about whether preterm infants at 23 to 
25, 26 weeks, being cared for by the thousands in our neonatal 
intensive care units, perceive pain to the point where pain medicine 
would be required to be administered to those patients. Pain medicine, 
that if it weren't required would be dangerous, but the decision--this 
has been decided. These infants are being treated for pain.
  The opposition would hold up a report in the Journal of the American 
Medical Association from 2005, written by pro-abortion proponents, 
which suggested that until 30 weeks, there was no perception of pain. 
Mr. Speaker, that's been settled in hospitals around the country where 
23- to 25-week fetuses are being treated. This bill sets that 20-week 
limit for two reasons. One is, as the judge says in his findings, 
everyone concedes that pain receptors are present at 20 weeks 
throughout the fetus. Mr. Speaker, God didn't put those there if they 
weren't there for a reason, and it is to perceive pain. Secondly, the 
risk to the mother increases exponentially as you get out of the first 
week of gestation, the risk of abortion to the mother. That's clear. 
That's demonstrated. That's epidemiology. That's not ideology; that's 
science. That's science clearly understood.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is founded on very basic scientific principles 
that the fetus has pain receptors throughout their body at 20 weeks and 
that the risk to the mother increases after 20 weeks.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I remind the previous speaker that 
women's doctors know a lot more about this subject matter than Members 
of Congress.
  And now with great pleasure I yield 1 minute to the Honorable Ted 
Deutch from Florida, a member of the House Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, even for a Republican House with a record of 
attacking women's rights, bringing up this bill under suspension that 
disregards the United States Constitution, is beyond brazen. It is time 
that my colleagues come clean with the American people and admit these 
arbitrary limitations on a woman's constitutional right to choose are 
part of a broader effort. Tonight, it's the District of Columbia. 
Tonight, 20 weeks is the threshold for turning a constitutional right 
into a crime. What is tomorrow--10 weeks, 10 days? Where does it end?
  Mr. Speaker, when they talk about competing rights, they are intent 
on granting, even to a newly fertilized egg, the constitutional rights 
of American women. They want to put the rights of a zygote ahead of the 
rights of a woman exercising autonomy over her own body.
  My colleagues say this bill is limited in scope; but their 
intentions, Mr. Speaker, are not limited in scope. Right now in this 
Congress and across the country, the rights of women are under attack.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

[[Page 12849]]


  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, right now in this Congress and across the 
country, the rights of American women are under attack. It is sad that 
we must fight to defend these rights. But fight, Mr. Speaker, we will.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 12\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Michigan has 12\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlelady from Florida (Mrs. Adams), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mrs. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3803, 
authored by my friend, Representative Trent Franks, which prohibits 
abortions in the District of Columbia on pain-capable unborn children. 
Recently, a poll conducted revealed that 63 percent of respondents 
favored banning abortion after the point where the unborn child can 
feel pain.
  Because abortions may be performed in the Nation's Capital for any 
reason during all 9 months of pregnancy, the need for this bill is very 
clear. Mr. Speaker, when we debated this bill in the Judiciary 
Committee a few weeks ago, I was shocked that some of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle referred to this child as a fetus. I'm sure 
my female colleagues who have been blessed to experience the joy of 
motherhood will agree with me when I say during the time I was carrying 
my daughter, I always thought of her as my baby, never a fetus, and I 
am very concerned that the discussion is being centered around 
everything but the most important thing, and that is what the baby 
feels and is capable of feeling at this time.
  We all have the opportunity to do the right thing. So let's stop 
playing word games and pass this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a senior Member of the 
Congress.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership 
on this issue and so many others.
  I rise in opposition to the D.C. abortion act and thank my colleague 
from New York, Jerry Nadler, and Eleanor Holmes Norton for their very 
strong leadership in opposition to this bill.
  The callous indifference that is shown to the lives, the health, the 
well-being, and constitutional rights of women in this bill simply 
beggar description. For instance, the bill has no provision whatsoever 
for women who have been the victims of rape or incest, and there is no 
exception for a woman's health.
  This bill would use the awesome power of the State to compel the 
victim of a violent assault to bear the child of her attacker, and it 
would compel a minor child who has been the victim of incest to bear 
her sibling.
  How can you even begin to justify the intrusion of Federal power into 
such deeply painful and personal matters. This bill is an assault on 
decency and common sense. And it adds to the battery of weapons being 
used by our Republican colleagues in their war against women.
  A vote for this bill is a vote to show contempt for women's health, 
women's rights, a doctor's role in health care decisions, and the 
Constitution all in one fell swoop. Vote ``no'' and stay out of the 
doctor's office and the private lives of American women. The health and 
safety of women in D.C. is too important, and this is a recurring bad 
dream. This happens to be the ninth anti-choice vote brought to the 
floor during this Congress. It is another example of the Republicans' 
war against women. I urge a strong ``no'' vote.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised and reminded not to 
traffic the well when another Member is under recognition.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3803, the D.C. 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  I fear for the conscience of our Nation because the termination of 
unborn children, for any reason, is tolerated in some parts of our 
country throughout pregnancy--even though scientific conclusions show 
infants feel pain by at least 20 weeks gestation.
  That literally means a baby at the halfway point of a pregnancy will 
experience pain during the violence of a dismemberment abortion, the 
most common second-trimester abortion, wherein a steel tool severs 
limbs from the infant and its skull is crushed.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. Speaker, such procedures are horrific, and in terms of pain, like 
torture to their infant subjects. As a country, we should leave this 
practice behind. That is why I'm a cosponsor of this legislation to 
prohibit elective abortions in D.C. past 20 weeks.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with me for the most vulnerable among 
us and vote in favor of H.R. 3803.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the 
former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Barbara Lee of Oakland, 
California.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for your tremendous leadership on this and so many issues 
so important to the health of women and to the health of our country.
  I'd like to also take a moment to commend Congresswoman Norton, the 
duly elected representative for the residents of the District of 
Columbia, for her relentless advocacy on behalf of her constituents and 
her leadership in fighting back the onslaught of attacks against the 
women of the District of Columbia.
  Tea Party Republicans continue to make D.C. their launching ground 
for attacks against women's health as part of the ongoing war on women.
  H.R. 3803, the so-called--and this is very sinister--District of 
Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is nothing more than 
a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and a vehicle for yet another 
ideological attack against women's reproductive rights. It's a direct 
threat to the health of every woman living in the District of Columbia. 
It contains no exceptions for health, for rape or incest, and it 
demonstrates a very callous disregard for the real-life experiences of 
women and their families.
  It is tragic--tragic--that the Tea Party Republicans refuse to bring 
up any bill that would create jobs but would rather wage war against 
the women of the District of Columbia. It is offensive, it is wrong, 
and it is unconstitutional. Government and politicians should stay out 
of the health care decisions of women, and they should stay out of the 
private lives of women.
  Women's decisions, as it relates to their health care, should be made 
by themselves. These decisions should be made with their medical 
professionals and their clergy or whomever they choose. Women should be 
able to make their decisions, not Members of Congress, not politicians, 
and not government officials.
  This is a direct threat. It is callous. Again, it is 
unconstitutional, and it's wrong.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), vice chairman of the Immigration 
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding.
  I would point out here we seem to talk in abstract terms about what 
is really going on. This is a demonstration of dilation, dismemberment, 
and evacuation that's taking place in the District of Columbia and 
across this country. Mr. Speaker, here is what takes place.
  There's a dilation of the cervix. We had testimony of Dr. Levatino 
who showed his tools. He reaches in and pulls a leg off of this little 
baby and pulls it out and puts it on a plate. He reaches in and pulls 
another leg off and does the same thing. He reminded us that this isn't 
an easy process. It's difficult to do so. You've got to pull hard,

[[Page 12850]]

then reach in and grab another piece of the torso and pull that out 
until you count up all the pieces on the plate and you get down to this 
little baby's head. For the head, there's a special tool to squeeze 
that little baby's head, crush that head and then pull it out.
  Who of us could watch such a procedure? Who of us could conduct such 
a procedure? Who of us? Dr. Levatino did, hundreds of times in his 
testimony. But his little girl died, and he took 2 weeks off and came 
back to work again thinking he was going to commit other abortions. He 
got halfway through, and he said, I looked at that pile of goo on the 
plate, and I realized that's somebody's daughter. This is somebody's 
daughter. This is somebody's son. This is a little baby. This is a 
little miracle of life. This is God's image being torn apart and 
dismembered and placed on a plate. And I'm hearing it's a 
constitutional right to do such an abhorrent thing. It's ghastly, and 
it's ghoulish, and it's the worst thing that I think one could put 
their hand to. If you can't watch it, you sure can't do it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud now to recognize the delegate 
from Washington, D.C., an excellent Member of this body, Eleanor Holmes 
Norton, for as much time as she may consume.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee 
for the hearings that they held that exposed this bill for what it does 
to reproductive choice in our country unconstitutionally on two scores, 
because it targets also the District of Columbia and therefore 
separates us out, we who live in the District of Columbia, in violation 
of the 14th Amendment for treatment differently from women who live 
just across the river in one part of our country, or in any part of our 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in our history that a standalone 
bill has come to the floor to deny the residents of the Nation's 
Capital the same constitutional rights as other Americans. We won't 
stand for it. Yet the folks behind this bill care nothing about the 
District of Columbia. They have picked on the District to get a phony 
Federal imprimatur on a bill that targets Roe v. Wade. In the process, 
they have picked a fight they do not want and cannot win with pro-
choice America.
  Bills based on pain or principle would not target only one city that 
has no vote on a bill that involves only the residents of that city. 
Women have blown the cover from a bill with a D.C. label because they 
know an attack on their reproductive health when they see it.
  Republicans have taken the gloves off. No one can any longer doubt 
that the war on women is on, even when it is by proxy as with this 
bill, infiltrating the Susan G. Komen for the Cure to stop Planned 
Parenthood from funding breast cancer screening, defunding Planned 
Parenthood, and taking away contraceptives in insurance policies. All 
of these battles have failed.
  Their final battle on the rights to the reproductive health of 
American women, abusing their congressional authority and using the 
women and physicians of the District of Columbia, that final battle 
must fail as well.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Education 
Committee.
  Mrs. ROBY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3803, the District of 
Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, of which I'm a proud 
cosponsor.
  In sitting here listening to debate, I want to get a few things 
straight. First of all, I am a woman, and I have not declared war on 
myself. Second of all, this is not a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. 
This is a direct challenge to cruelty to unborn children. Currently, 
the policy in D.C. legally allows abortion for any reason until the 
moment of birth.
  Mr. Speaker, Erin and Blake Hamby, a couple from my home State of 
Alabama, were pregnant with their second daughter when Erin had 
complications at 22 weeks. And at only 25 weeks and 2 days, their 
little baby, Faith, was born on January 8, weighing only 1 pound, 14 
ounces, but every bit the same baby as my own children, Margaret and 
George, who were born full term.
  Faith spent 2\1/2\ months in the NICU, and both she and her parents 
struggled daily, but that tiny baby--that tiny baby--is now 6\1/2\ 
months old and thriving.
  In the District of Columbia, Faith could have been aborted not only 
at the point at which she was born, but also any day up to the day of 
her birth. H.R. 3803 prohibits abortions in D.C. after 20 weeks' 
gestation, a time frame based on scientific evidence that the unborn 
child can experience pain by at least at this stage of development.

                              {time}  1820

  In June of 2011, Alabama became the fifth State to pass a similar 
measure by banning physicians from performing abortions after 20 weeks.
  I applaud my home State of Alabama in its admirable fight to protect 
human life, such as Faith's when she arrived earlier than expected into 
this world. I am proud to vote in support of H.R. 3803 tonight, and I 
encourage my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arizona has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  May I inform my colleagues that the Planned Parenthood organization 
will score today's vote, as will NARAL Pro-Choice America score today's 
vote.
  Now, Members, let no one be fooled, no matter what title you want to 
give the measure that's before us, it is a direct assault against the 
Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade and represents another line of 
attack against women's reproductive rights. That's why there are so 
many women's organizations that are opposed to it and have been.
  The measure imposes an outright ban on abortions before viability, 
even where a woman's health may be at risk. Do we really want to 
support that kind of legislation? In cases where a woman's life is 
endangered, it still requires a doctor to focus on the health of the 
fetus.
  Furthermore, this measure will jeopardize a women's health, her 
ability to have children in the future, and in the case of rape and 
incest would force her to bear her abuser's child. Amazingly, the bill 
even fails to include an exception for young girls who are survivors of 
rape and incest.
  When the American people expect us to focus on putting people back to 
work, as former Chairman Nadler remarked, this committee again plays 
politics with women's health. Don't support this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a senior member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership 
in this area.
  Mr. Speaker, last week I became a grandfather for the first time. 
Seeing that defenseless little child for the first time reminded me 
just how precious life is and why we're morally obligated to protect 
it. H.R. 3803 would do just that, putting an end to a cruel practice 
taking place here in our Nation's capital.
  The infamous 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade relied upon 
medical knowledge that is now obsolete. Recent medical research and 
testing shows that an unborn child may have the capacity to experience 
pain starting as early as 20 weeks in the womb. In fact, in the 2004 
case of Carhart v. Ashcroft, Dr. Sunny Anand was asked whether a fetus 
would feel pain in a common abortion procedure, dilation and 
extraction, also known as ``dismemberment abortion.'' He testified: 
``If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that 
there will be pain caused to the fetus, and I believe that it will be 
severe and excruciating pain.'' We must stop that, and that's what this 
legislation would do.

[[Page 12851]]


  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is obnoxious for three 
reasons:
  Number one, it picks on the District of Columbia because we can, 
because they are defenseless. We wouldn't do this to any State.
  Number two, it is a direct contradiction of Roe v. Wade, which says 
you cannot ban an abortion before viability. And one ignorant judge in 
Arizona, one far-right judge in Arizona who says that a ban is not a 
ban, it's only a limitation as long as there's an exemption for the 
risk of life to the mother, doesn't change the meaning of the English 
language nor the meaning of the Supreme Court.
  And three, it's obnoxious because it says to a woman whose health, 
whose future fertility, whose health is threatened, we judge that your 
health is less important than that pregnancy. It's not your decision; 
it's our decision because we're a bunch of arrogant politicians and 
you're only a woman who's pregnant, and to heck with you. That's why 
it's obnoxious.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
  As we know, to much of the world, America stands for liberty, for 
freedom. The Capitol and the White House are recognizable symbols of 
how Americans have fought and died for the truth: That governments 
exist to protect our inalienable rights to life and liberty. But just 
blocks from here, steps away from the White House, abortionists 
infringe on the rights of society's most vulnerable--the unborn.
  While of course we would like to see an end to all abortions, to an 
end of the taking of all unborn life, today's legislation focuses on 
protecting the unborn at a time when it is a scientific fact that they 
are able to feel pain--excruciating pain.
  It is cruel, inhumane, and contradictory to this Nation's leadership 
as the defender and protector of individual liberties to inflict pain 
knowingly on anyone, let alone a defenseless, unborn child. I ask my 
colleagues to recognize this fact by supporting this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arizona has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, when the American people expect us 
to focus on putting people back to work, we find ourselves again 
playing politics with women's health, pandering to the most radical 
interest groups, and wasting time on divisive social issues, which to 
some may be good politics, but I would caution my colleagues to 
remember why we've been sent here.
  This war against women cannot continue. The middle class is fighting 
for its life, workers struggling, and yet we're again putting on this 
show for the extreme conservatives with an unconstitutional bill that 
has no chance of becoming law. In fact, for those who are keeping 
count, this is the second time the majority has brought up a bill 
restricting access to abortion under a special procedure requiring a 
two-thirds vote.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Africa, Global 
Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, pain--we all dread it, avoid it, even fear it, and go to 
extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and duration. By now, 
many Americans know that abortion methods are violent and include 
dismemberment of a child's fragile body, chemical poisoning, and 
hypodermic needles to the baby's heart. There is nothing humane, 
benign, or compassionate about abortion. It is violence against 
children, and it hurts women.
  But the relatively new scientific understanding that unborn children 
are forced to endure excruciating pain in the performance of later-term 
abortions--and perhaps even earlier--should shock us. Children not only 
die from abortion; they suffer. This is a wake-up call to all 
Americans: unborn children feel pain. This highly disturbing fact 
should further inspire us all to seek to protect these weak and 
vulnerable children.
  Tragically, for the defenseless child in the womb, the D.C. Council 
voted in 2004 to eviscerate every legal protection afforded unborn 
children, making abortion on demand legal in D.C. right up until the 
moment of birth.
  The D.C. Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, authored by my 
distinguished colleague, Trent Franks, seeks to safeguard at least some 
of these kids--from 20 weeks onward--from both pain and death.
  Of note, today's vote comes on the heels of yesterday's Federal 
district court decision upholding a similar law in Arizona.

                              {time}  1830

  In that decision, the judge said, ``by 20 weeks, sensory receptors 
develop all over the child's body'' and ``when provided by painful 
stimuli, such as a needle, the child reacts, as measured by increases 
in the child's stress hormones, heart rate, and blood pressure.''
  Mr. Speaker, the poster to my left depicts a D&E abortion, the most 
commonly procured method of abortion in later term, a dismemberment 
abortion. It involves using a long steel tool to grasp and tear off, by 
brute force, the arms and the legs of the developing child, after which 
the skull is crushed.
  Testifying at the full committee hearing in May, Dr. Anthony 
Levatino, a former abortionist who has performed many of these D&E 
abortions said: ``Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on 
the clamp, set the jaws and pull hard.''
  Then he talks about how arms and legs and intestines are all pulled 
out. Then he said, ``Many times a little face may come out and stare 
back at you. Congratulations! You have just successfully performed a 
second-trimester abortion.''
  This legislation seeks to protect these kids from this horrible 
cruelty.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. You know, I have heard a lot of debate back and forth, 
but my friends, this is not about ending abortion. Oh, how I wish it 
was.
  This is about ending late-term abortions in the District of Columbia 
because of the cruel way that those babies are terminated. The 
dismemberment, the pain that is caused by those little innocent babies, 
is contrary to what the Founders of our Constitution wanted for our 
Nation. That's what this act is about.
  We have the right and the authority, because of the Constitution, to 
do this, to end this very barbaric procedure, and that's why we need to 
pass this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield our remaining time to the 
distinguished delegate from Washington, D.C., Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, almost all abortions in the District of 
Columbia are performed between six and 10 weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, I was denied my request, my request was denied even to 
testify on this bill, even though this bill affects only residents of 
my city. I was told that, and I did not insist, that the Democrats had 
a witness. They had to hear from that witness.
  Christy Zink had an abortion at 22 weeks, only after her physician 
told her that she was carrying a fetus with half a brain and that if it 
were born alive, it would have constant seizures throughout its life. 
This bill would not have allowed Christy Zink to have an abortion, and 
she would have had to carry that fetus to term.
  She has now had a healthy baby. She still grieves for the baby she 
could not

[[Page 12852]]

have, but she would never have deserved the punishment that this bill 
would have inflicted on her.
  I ask Members of this House to respect the laws and the women and the 
residents of the District of Columbia. Let us do what you insist all 
over the United States be done in your districts.
  We differ. Respect our differences, even as I respect yours.

               [From the Washington Post, July 27, 2012]

            The Kind of Woman Who Needs a Late-term Abortion

                           (By Christy Zink)

       Introduce me to the woman who has an abortion after 20 
     weeks because she is cruel and heartless. Introduce me to the 
     lazy gal who gets knocked up and ignores her condition until, 
     more than halfway through her pregnancy, she ends it because 
     it has become too darn inconvenient for her selfish 
     lifestyle.
       If such a woman exists, I have never met her. Sadly, 
     however, she appears to have influenced the thinking of even 
     savvy, politically informed people in this country. 
     Otherwise, how could they argue that carrying to term is 
     always the right decision late in pregnancy? In fact, the 
     myth of such callous women has been compelling enough to push 
     along a bill that would ban abortion in the District after 20 
     weeks of pregnancy; the bill was approved this month by the 
     House Judiciary Committee, moving it forward for 
     consideration by the full House, perhaps as soon as Tuesday.
       Believing this fabrication of the radical right depends on 
     one's ability to conjure at once a perfectly unfeeling woman 
     and a perfectly healthy child, a stand-in for the much more 
     tragic and complex reality. Meet, instead, a real live, 
     breathing woman who terminated a much-wanted pregnancy at 
     almost 22 weeks, when her baby was found to have severe fetal 
     anomalies of the brain.
       My son's condition could not have been detected earlier in 
     the pregnancy. Far from lazy, I was conscientious about 
     prenatal care. I received excellent medical attention from my 
     obstetrician, one of the District's best. Only at our 20-week 
     sonogram were there warning signs, and only with a high-
     powered MRI did we discover the devastating truth of our 
     son's condition. He was missing the corpus callosum, the 
     central connecting structure of the brain, and essentially 
     one side of his brain.
       If he survived the pregnancy and birth, the doctors told 
     us, he would have been born into a life of continuous 
     seizures and near-constant pain. He might never have left the 
     hospital. To help control the seizures, he would have needed 
     surgery to remove more of what little brain matter he had. 
     That was the reality for me and for my family.
       Meet, too, the many real women I know who belong to one of 
     the saddest groups in the world: those carrying babies for 
     whom there was no real hope and who made the heartbreaking 
     decision to end their pregnancies for medical reasons. Meet 
     the women among this group who had gotten, they thought, 
     safely to the middle of pregnancy, who had been planning 
     nurseries and filling baby registries, only to find they 
     would need to plan a memorial service and to build, somehow, 
     a life in aftermath.
       We are not reckless, ruthless creatures. Our hearts hurt 
     each day for our losses. We mourn. We speak the names and 
     nicknames of each other's babies to one another; we hold each 
     other up on the anniversaries of our losses, and we celebrate 
     new babies and new accomplishments, all bittersweet because 
     they arrive in the wake of grief. We extend our arms to the 
     women who must join our community, and we lament that our 
     numbers rise every day.
       Medical research from the Guttmacher Institute shows that 
     post-21-week terminations make up less than 2 percent of all 
     abortions in this country. Women like me can seem an 
     exception. You also rarely hear stories like mine, because 
     they involve intensely private sorrow and because there is no 
     small amount of shame still associated with terminating a 
     pregnancy, no matter how medically necessary.
       The consequences of the House bill, if it becomes law, will 
     be inhumane. If the restrictions in this bill had been the 
     law of the land when my husband and I received our diagnosis, 
     I would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby 
     who the doctors concurred had no chance of a real life and 
     who would have faced severe, continual pain. The decision my 
     husband and I made to terminate the pregnancy was made out of 
     love--to spare my son pain and suffering.
       The ugly politics in this Congress and the sheer number of 
     Republicans mean that this bill will likely pass in the 
     House. I understand any citizen's hesitancy when the issue of 
     the right to middle-term to late-term abortion arises. But I 
     also know from my own experience that this bill would have 
     calamitous ramifications for real women and real families, 
     and that the women it would most affect could never imagine 
     they would need their right to abortion protected in this 
     way.
       Women and their families must be able to trust their 
     doctors and retain their access to medical care when they 
     most need it. To make sure that happens, members of the 
     Senate and ordinary people across this country must see 
     through the stereotype of the late-term aborter and see, 
     instead, the true face of a woman who has been in this 
     situation. I extend my hand; it is an honor to make your 
     acquaintance.

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a time in this country and even across the 
world when protecting little babies from torture was a noble thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I've heard my colleagues today call this effort to 
protect little babies from tortuous pain extremist ideology. And I 
would just suggest to you, sir, if they are right, then, I, for one, 
will envy no one that they might call mainstream, because, Mr. Speaker, 
this bill simply says that we intend, in the seat of freedom in 
America, where Congress has the ultimate and clear responsibility 
constitutionally to legislate, that we're going to protect unborn 
children that have reached the age where they can feel pain.
  Mr. Speaker, today, in Washington, D.C., a child can be aborted in 
labor, and that is not who America is.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if we, in this body, cannot find 
the courage and the will to protect these little babies from this kind 
of torture, then I'm not sure that we will ever find the will or the 
courage to protect any kind of liberty for anyone in this place.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that there is the will and the 
courage to do that in this body. I would predict that this body will 
pass overwhelmingly, by a majority vote, even though we won't maybe 
meet the suspension rules, but we will pass by an overwhelming number 
of votes this bill today. I believe it'll be 240, 250 votes, and it 
will at least demonstrate to the world that there's still a conscience 
in this place, that we still stand for the commitment to protect little 
babies that have no other people to protect them.
  This is our job here, to protect the rights of the innocent, and by 
the grace of God we're going to do that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the DC 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It is simply unfathomable 
that, other than by the methods banned by federal law, the District of 
Columbia allows abortion for any reason, by any method up until the 
moment right before birth. While people may differ on the issue of 
abortion, Americans overwhelmingly support the notion that abortions 
should be restricted at the point at which an unborn child can feel 
pain. And with good reason, the ability to experience pain is one of 
the traits that makes us human. And the commitment to protect the 
defenseless from physical acts of violence is one of the hallmarks of 
humanity.
  Science demonstrates that by at least 20 weeks after fertilization, 
an unborn child can feel pain. In response to this scientific evidence, 
to date nine states have enacted laws to restrict late-term abortions. 
Just this week, a judge upheld an Arizona law that does the same thing 
we're attempting here today, citing the brutal methods used to abort a 
baby late in a pregnancy and the scientific fact that unborn children 
have developed pain sensors all over their bodies by at least 20 weeks. 
It is time to add the District of Columbia to the list of jurisdictions 
that put an end to the practice of late-term abortions.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support for H.R. 3803, 
the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This 
legislation affects the District of Columbia, which, operating under 
authority delegated by Congress, repealed all limitations on abortion 
at any stage of pregnancy, effective April 29, 2004.
  H.R. 3803 would outlaw abortion in the District of Columbia on an 
unborn child 20 weeks or more after fertilization, except ``if, in 
reasonable medical judgment, the abortion is necessary to save the life 
of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, 
physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering 
physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself,'' 
but not including psychological disorders or threats of self-injury.
  An unborn child can react to touch merely 8 weeks after 
fertilization, and after 20 weeks, the child can feel pain. At this 20-
week mark, a child will recoil from painful stimuli and show 
significant increases in stress hormones, and fetal anesthesia is 
routinely administered to children who undergo surgery while still in 
the

[[Page 12853]]

womb. There is significant medical evidence supporting the child's 
ability to experience pain at 20 weeks, if not earlier, and the 
unlimited abortion currently allowed in the District of Columbia is 
simply inhumane.
  I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of H.R. 3803, which is a 
morally necessary and common-sense piece of legislation, and I support 
it fully. Additionally, I firmly believe that our nation must protect 
human life at all stages, and unborn children are no exception. During 
my time in Congress, I have stood against abortion and supported 
numerous pieces of pro-life legislation. I am also a member of the 
Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, and I will continue to fight to protect 
the lives of the unborn in any way I can.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
3803, which would make abortions performed at 20 weeks gestation or 
later unlawful in the District of Columbia.
  Our first priorities in the House of Representatives must be helping 
to foster job creation and supporting middle class families.
  Instead, the Republicans once again have chosen to take up divisive 
social issues and continue their war on women with a radical assault on 
women's health care. This time, we are discussing a bill that would be 
a dangerous intrusion into the lives of women as well as the governance 
of the District of Columbia.
  Once again, the Majority is asking Congress to play doctor. This bill 
is an attempt to ban safe, legal, and often medically-necessary 
abortion services for women in the District of Columbia without the 
consent of the city's residents or representatives. It seems to me to 
be even unconstitutional.
  Even when the Republicans could have received input from District of 
Columbia representatives, they refused. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton 
was denied the opportunity to testify during a congressional hearing on 
this bill that would affect the health and safety of the women in the 
District of Columbia.
  Besides being misguided and offensive, H.R. 3803 is dangerous. This 
bill has only a narrow exception for the life of the woman. This bill 
has no exception at all for cases of rape or incest.
  It is clear that this legislation is part of a broader strategy to 
ban abortion everywhere not just in the District of Columbia.
  I oppose this anti-choice, anti-woman, and anti-District of Columbia 
bill and urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous piece of 
legislation.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 3803, yet another 
assault on women's personal decision making.
  In Hawaii, people tell me we should be talking about jobs and working 
together to get the economy moving. Instead, the House Republican 
Majority continues its assault on women. Debating divisive social 
issues isn't going to help our economy or create one single job.
  A woman's right to choose is a fundamental freedom--there is no place 
for politicians in individuals' private medical decisions.
  H.R. 3803 restricts access to abortions in the District of Columbia 
after 20 weeks, regardless of who pays for the procedure. The bill 
wouldn't even allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest, makes 
no exception for a woman's health, and would require a woman to carry a 
nonviable fetus to term.
  A woman shouldn't need to ask a politician for permission to make 
private medical decisions. H.R. 3803 would let politicians tell women 
what to do.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and get to work on the real 
issues people in Hawaii are most concerned about right now, creating 
jobs and moving our economy forward.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is taking 
action to protect the most vulnerable children in our nation's capital. 
H.R. 3803, the ``District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act,'' would limit the District's extreme policy of allowing 
abortion for any reason, at any time, up until the moment of birth. 
Based on substantial research showing that a child has the capacity to 
feel pain starting at 20 weeks of development, we cannot in good 
conscience allow the District's policy of permitting late-term 
abortions to stand. Although Congress has repeatedly prohibited the use 
of taxpayer money for abortions in the capital, the District currently 
has one of the most far-reaching abortion policies in the nation, 
permitting abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
  H.R. 3803 would ban abortions of pain-capable unborn children except 
to save the life of the mother. Under the Constitution, Congress and 
the President have ultimate responsibility for the governance of the 
capital, as Article I, Section 8, states that ``Congress shall . . . 
exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such 
District.'' As a member of Congress who believes in the sanctity of 
human life, I am a strong supporter and co-sponsor of this important 
legislation. I deeply regret that I must miss the vote on final 
passage, and would have proudly voted yes.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3803, the 
District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, authored 
by my colleague, Congressman Trent Franks. I am an original cosponsor 
of this bill that would prohibit abortions in Washington, DC, after 20 
weeks of pregnancy, except when the mother's life is at risk. I am 
proud that a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives has joined 
me and cosponsored this bill.
  Ample scientific evidence shows that at 20 weeks, fetuses can feel 
pain. Think about that for a moment. They feel it.
  This is especially upsetting because most late-term abortions involve 
procedures that are particularly heinous. Yet the Washington, DC, 
government allows abortions at any time for any reason, up until the 
moment of birth. This is unconscionable. The vast majority of Americans 
do not support a policy of ``abortion on demand'' after the point at 
which fetuses can feel pain. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting H.R. 3803, the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the majority claims that there is no war on 
women, but here is yet another example of their attempt to restrict 
women's access to reproductive health care. H.R. 3803 is quite simply 
another attempt by anti-choice Republicans to reverse the freedoms 
women have gained over the last several decades regarding reproductive 
choice in health care.
  Once again, the majority has sought to restrict women's access to 
reproductive healthcare by threatening doctors with prison (two years) 
and other penalties if they perform abortions after 20 weeks. With 
doctors fearful of yet even more restrictions to their practice, many 
will simply refuse to treat women who want to obtain a safe and legal 
abortion, thus achieving the majority's intended goal.
  Unbelievably, this bill also allows the woman who obtains the 
abortion, the father, or the maternal grandparents to press civil 
charges against the doctor! In addition, there are no exceptions to 
this ban for rape, incest, fetal anomaly, or a woman's health, and with 
only a narrow exception for a woman's life. This bill also uses the 
term ``unborn child'' which is a very slippery slope.
  The fact that H.R. 3803 is blatantly unconstitutional has been over-
looked by the majority. It clearly violates two Supreme Court decisions 
regarding pre-viability and exceptions for a woman's life and health.
  There can be no doubt about the national implications of a bill with 
D.C.'s name on it as a cover for attacking the reproductive rights of 
the Nation's women. The citizen's of the District of Columbia are being 
unfairly attacked. It is absolutely shameful that the sponsors of this 
legislation are trying to impose their will on the women of D.C. 
because they know for a fact they could not pass this policy at the 
national level.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3803 is just another attempt by the majority to 
wage a war upon women--unfortunately, this time it is directed at 
residents of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3803 would prevent abortions of 
unborn children who are more than 20 weeks after fertilization--the age 
at which scientific evidence shows that they can feel great pain.
  This bill will prevent brutal, late term abortion procedures, 
including one in which unborn children are mutilated and dismembered 
while they are still alive. Only the most calloused among us can hear 
the description of these types of procedures and not react with 
disgust.
  I strongly believe that life begins at conception, and that we should 
protect the lives of innocent unborn children. I wish this bill went 
even further, but the absolute least we can do is ban abortion when we 
know the unborn children experience great pain. I urge support of this 
important legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3803, 
which unfairly targets the District of Columbia for a prohibition on 
abortions after 20 weeks, with no exception to protect a woman's 
health. This bill is simply another in a long line of attempts by House 
GOP to undermine a woman's fundamental right to choose.
  H.R. 3803 directly contradicts Roe v. Wade by prohibiting pre-
viability abortions and making no exception to protect a woman's 
health. The narrow exception in this bill that allows for an abortion 
when it's necessary to save a woman's life is completely inadequate. 
H.R. 3803 does not include an exception for abortions that would 
prevent severe harm to a woman's health, or for survivors of incest or 
rape.

[[Page 12854]]

  Finally, the nature of this legislation derides the democratic 
process by empowering politicians to make health decisions for citizens 
that they do not represent. The singling out of District citizens--who 
have never had the opportunity to elect a voting Member of this body--
is a cynical move that ignores their wishes and undermines the locally 
elected City Council and Mayor. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
misguided legislation.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to applaud, yes 
applaud, my Republican colleagues, who voted with the Democrats to 
reject the anti-choice legislation H.R. 3803 D.C., the 20 Week Abortion 
Ban Bill. This bill was rejected by a vote of 220 to 154
  Had it passed, H.R. 3803 would have contained no exception for rape 
or incest, for medically futile pregnancies, or for the health of the 
woman--forcing pregnant women facing medical complications to wait 
until their conditions become life-threatening before termination of 
the pregnancy becomes an option. Additionally, under this piece of 
legislation, doctors could face two years in prison and fines of up to 
$250,000 for performing abortions and could be sued by their patients 
or their patients' families.
  This bill would have not only harmed women, but also is 
unconstitutional since this legislation absolutely goes against current 
law as established in 1973 by Roe v. Wade. Herein lies the irony of the 
bill, Republicans, especially those who are members of the Tea Party, 
constantly espouse their support and respect for the law, yet they 
conveniently forget the fact that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. 
Trying to circumvent that law, which this bill attempted to do, is in 
fact unconstitutional.
  My colleague Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is the only duly 
elected representative for Washington, D.C. in Congress, was even 
denied an opportunity to testify during a hearing on this bill. Even 
the Republicans know that this bill is a travesty of justice!
  No matter what a person believes about abortion, everyone can agree 
that we should reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and the need 
for abortions. Abortion should be a last option, not a form of birth 
control. In order to reduce the demand for abortion, we must provide 
our children with comprehensive sex education and access to safe and 
affordable health care and birth control.
  Since the Republicans want to deny women their right to choose, why 
not do something so that most women will not have to be put in a 
situation where they have to choose. So, I ask my Republican colleagues 
to join me in supporting the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, 
which will provide the needed access to affordable health care and 
contraceptives and in doing so, not put women in the position where 
they have to consider abortion.
  Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the House voted on H.R. 
3803, the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act 
that was introduced by my colleague from Arizona, Representative Trent 
Franks. This bill would generally prohibit abortions, except in cases 
where the mother is at risk, 20 weeks after fertilization, the point at 
which studies have shown an unborn child has the capacity to feel pain.
  I strongly believe that we have a moral obligation to protect life 
and defend those who cannot defend themselves. Recognizing the gruesome 
nature of late stage abortions, nine states, including my home State of 
Arizona, have enacted laws to restrict this procedure.
  While I'm disappointed that we failed to secure the two-thirds vote 
necessary to pass H.R. 3803 this week, I was heartened that a majority 
of my colleagues in the House stood to protect the unborn. This week's 
vote has only strengthened my resolve to continue to advocate for pro-
life polices to hasten the day when all life is valued and treated as a 
gift.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3803, the 
District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Although 
nine other states have passed similar abortion bans, this is the first 
attempt to pass a law of this kind on a federal level. However, even 
the nine state laws include at least a narrow exception to protect 
women's health. This bill unfairly singles out the District of 
Columbia, but more importantly it lacks any health exceptions to the 
ban. Pregnancy can become dangerous, sometimes even life-threatening. 
This bill fails to provide women with necessary health exceptions to 
save their lives or their ability to have children in the future.
  In addition to not protecting women who are pregnant, H.R. 3803 fails 
to provide exceptions in instances of rape or incest, even when it 
involves young girls. About 25,000 women become pregnant due to rape 
each year and about 30 percent of rape cases involve women under 18. 
This bill falls short in providing the necessary protections for these 
women.
  I would have voted against H.R. 3803. Unfortunately my plane was 
delayed due to weather coming in to Washington, DC, causing me to miss 
the vote. I have been a strong supporter for women's health in the past 
and I plan to continue to do so.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, as a society we must work to ensure that 
lives of those who are unable to protect themselves are safeguarded; 
however elected leaders also have an obligation to ensure that laws 
which are passed, especially at the national level, allow for public 
input by the people they affect.
  I strongly agree with the underlying intent of H.R. 3803, the 
District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, to 
prevent the termination of lives of the most vulnerable in our 
society--that of unborn children. H.R. 3803 would prohibit abortions 
after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except when an acute physical condition 
endangers the life of the mother. The bill further requires that any 
termination of pregnancy be done in a manner that provides the best 
conditions for the unborn child to survive.
  I am, however, concerned with the process used to develop and 
publicly debate the bill. Further, I am concerned about the impact it 
has on home rule for the District of Columbia. Congress has delegated 
much authority to the D.C. government to establish policies that 
reflect the needs of those who live here. But H.R. 3803, which only 
affects Washington, D.C., would implement this abortion ban without the 
input of D.C. residents and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton who 
represents the people of the District of Columbia in the United States 
Congress.
  I believe that the United States should enact strong policies that 
recognize and protect the sanctity of human life. However if Congress 
wants to make meaningful progress to achieve this, legislation should 
consider the views of those impacted by the legislation and not ignore 
their points of view or concerns.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3803, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________