PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT
(House of Representatives - October 03, 2017)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 158 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[Pages H7712-H7728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT

  Mrs. HANDEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 548, I call up

[[Page H7713]]

the bill (H.R. 36) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect 
pain-capable unborn children, and for other purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 36

       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 ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF 
                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT.

       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. In the 
     United States, surgery of this type is being performed by 20 
     weeks after fertilization and earlier in specialized units 
     affiliated with children's hospitals.
       (6) The position, asserted by some physicians, 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) Congress has authority to extend protection to pain-
     capable unborn children under the Supreme Court's Commerce 
     Clause precedents and under the Constitution's grants of 
     powers to Congress under the Equal Protection, Due Process, 
     and Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

     SEC. 3. 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. PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION.

       ``(a) Unlawful Conduct.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, it shall be unlawful for any person to 
     perform an abortion or attempt to do so, unless in conformity 
     with the requirements set forth in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Requirements for Abortions.--
       ``(1) Assessment of the age of the unborn child.--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) Prohibition on performance of certain abortions.--
       ``(A) Generally for unborn children 20 weeks or older.--
     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) Exceptions.--Subparagraph (A) does not apply if--
       ``(i) 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;
       ``(ii) the pregnancy is the result of rape against an adult 
     woman, and at least 48 hours prior to the abortion--

       ``(I) she has obtained counseling for the rape; or
       ``(II) she has obtained medical treatment for the rape or 
     an injury related to the rape; or

       ``(iii) the pregnancy is a result of rape against a minor 
     or incest against a minor, and the rape or incest has been 
     reported at any time prior to the abortion to either--

       ``(I) a government agency legally authorized to act on 
     reports of child abuse; or
       ``(II) a law enforcement agency.

       ``(C) Requirement as to manner of procedure performed.--
     Notwithstanding the definitions of `abortion' and `attempt an 
     abortion' in this section, a physician terminating or 
     attempting to terminate a pregnancy under an 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.
       ``(D) Requirement that a physician trained in neonatal 
     resuscitation be present.--If, in reasonable medical 
     judgment, the pain-capable unborn child has the potential to 
     survive outside the womb, the physician who performs or 
     attempts an abortion under an exception provided by 
     subparagraph (B) shall ensure a second physician trained in 
     neonatal resuscitation is present and prepared to provide 
     care to the child consistent with the requirements of 
     subparagraph (E).
       ``(E) Children born alive after attempted abortions.--When 
     a physician performs or attempts an abortion in accordance 
     with this section, and the child is born alive, as defined in 
     section 8 of title 1 (commonly known as the Born-Alive 
     Infants Protection Act of 2002), the following shall apply:
       ``(i) Degree of care required.--Any health care 
     practitioner present at the time shall humanely exercise the 
     same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to 
     preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably 
     diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would 
     render to a child born alive at the same gestational age in 
     the course of a natural birth.
       ``(ii) Immediate admission to a hospital.--Following the 
     care required to be rendered under clause (i), the child born 
     alive shall be immediately transported and admitted to a 
     hospital.
       ``(iii) Mandatory reporting of violations.--A health care 
     practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician's 
     office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure 
     to comply with the requirements of this subparagraph must 
     immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or 
     Federal law enforcement agency or both.
       ``(F) Documentation requirements.--
       ``(i) Documentation pertaining to adults.--A physician who 
     performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an 
     exception provided by subparagraph (B)(ii) shall, prior to 
     the abortion, place in the patient medical file documentation 
     from a hospital licensed by the State or operated under 
     authority of a Federal agency, a medical clinic licensed by 
     the State or operated under authority of a Federal agency, 
     from a personal physician licensed by the State, a counselor 
     licensed by the State, or a victim's rights advocate provided 
     by a law enforcement agency that the adult woman seeking the 
     abortion obtained medical treatment or counseling for the 
     rape or an injury related to the rape.
       ``(ii) Documentation pertaining to minors.--A physician who 
     performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an 
     exception provided by subparagraph (B)(iii) shall, prior to 
     the abortion, place in the patient medical file documentation 
     from a government agency legally authorized to act on reports 
     of child abuse that the rape or incest was reported prior to 
     the abortion; or, as an alternative, documentation from a law 
     enforcement agency that the rape or incest was reported prior 
     to the abortion.
       ``(G) Informed consent.--
       ``(i) Consent form required.--The physician who intends to 
     perform or attempt to perform an abortion under the 
     provisions of

[[Page H7714]]

     subparagraph (B) may not perform any part of the abortion 
     procedure without first obtaining a signed Informed Consent 
     Authorization form in accordance with this subparagraph.
       ``(ii) Content of consent form.--The Informed Consent 
     Authorization form shall be presented in person by the 
     physician and shall consist of--

       ``(I) a statement by the physician indicating the probable 
     post-fertilization age of the pain-capable unborn child;
       ``(II) a statement that Federal law allows abortion after 
     20 weeks fetal age only if the mother's life is endangered by 
     a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, 
     when the pregnancy was the result of rape, or an act of 
     incest against a minor;
       ``(III) a statement that the abortion must be performed by 
     the method most likely to allow the child to be born alive 
     unless this would cause significant risk to the mother;
       ``(IV) a statement that in any case in which an abortion 
     procedure results in a child born alive, Federal law requires 
     that child to be given every form of medical assistance that 
     is provided to children spontaneously born prematurely, 
     including transportation and admittance to a hospital;
       ``(V) a statement that these requirements are binding upon 
     the physician and all other medical personnel who are subject 
     to criminal and civil penalties and that a woman on whom an 
     abortion has been performed may take civil action if these 
     requirements are not followed; and
       ``(VI) affirmation that each signer has filled out the 
     informed consent form to the best of their knowledge and 
     understands the information contained in the form.

       ``(iii) Signatories required.--The Informed Consent 
     Authorization form shall be signed in person by the woman 
     seeking the abortion, the physician performing or attempting 
     to perform the abortion, and a witness.
       ``(iv) Retention of consent form.--The physician performing 
     or attempting to perform an abortion must retain the signed 
     informed consent form in the patient's medical file.
       ``(H) Requirement for data retention.--Paragraph (j)(2) of 
     section 164.530 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     shall apply to documentation required to be placed in a 
     patient's medical file pursuant to subparagraph (F) of 
     subsection (b)(2) and a consent form required to be retained 
     in a patient's medical file pursuant to subparagraph (G) of 
     such subsection in the same manner and to the same extent as 
     such paragraph applies to documentation required by paragraph 
     (j)(1) of such section.
       ``(I) Additional exceptions and requirements.--
       ``(i) In cases of risk of death or major injury to the 
     mother.--Subparagraphs (C), (D), and (G) shall not apply if, 
     in reasonable medical judgment, compliance with such 
     paragraphs 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.

       ``(ii) Exclusion of certain facilities.--Notwithstanding 
     the definitions of the terms `medical treatment' and 
     `counseling' in subsection (g), the counseling or medical 
     treatment described in subparagraph (B)(ii) may not be 
     provided by a facility that performs abortions (unless that 
     facility is a hospital).
       ``(iii) Rule of construction in cases of reports to law 
     enforcement.--The requirements of subparagraph (B)(ii) do not 
     apply if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the 
     abortion to a law enforcement agency or Department of Defense 
     victim assistance personnel.
       ``(iv) Compliance with certain state laws.--

       ``(I) State laws regarding reporting of rape and incest.--
     The physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion 
     under an exception provided by subparagraph (B) shall comply 
     with such applicable State laws that are in effect as the 
     State's Attorney General may designate, regarding reporting 
     requirements in cases of rape or incest.
       ``(II) State laws regarding parental involvement.--The 
     physician who intends to perform an abortion on a minor under 
     an exception provided by subparagraph (B) shall comply with 
     any applicable State laws requiring parental involvement in a 
     minor's decision to have an abortion.

       ``(c) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever violates subsection (a) 
     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more 
     than 5 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 of 
     this title based on such a violation.
       ``(e) Civil Remedies.--
       ``(1) Civil action by a woman on whom an abortion is 
     performed.--A woman upon whom an abortion has been performed 
     or attempted in violation of any provision of this section 
     may, in a civil action against any person who committed the 
     violation, obtain appropriate relief.
       ``(2) Civil action by a parent of a minor on whom an 
     abortion is performed.--A parent of a minor upon whom an 
     abortion has been performed or attempted under an exception 
     provided for in subsection (b)(2)(B), and that was performed 
     in violation of any provision of this section may, in a civil 
     action against any person who committed the violation obtain 
     appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the 
     plaintiff's criminal conduct.
       ``(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;
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of 
     the abortion; and
       ``(C) punitive damages.
       ``(4) 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.
       ``(5) Attorneys fees for defendant.--If a defendant in a 
     civil action under this subsection prevails and the court 
     finds that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous, the court 
     shall award a reasonable attorney's fee in favor of the 
     defendant against the plaintiff.
       ``(6) Awards against woman.--Except under paragraph (5), 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) Data Collection.--
       ``(1) Data submissions.--Any physician who performs or 
     attempts an abortion described in subsection (b)(2)(B) shall 
     annually submit a summary of all such abortions to the 
     National Center for Health Statistics (hereinafter referred 
     to as the `Center') not later than 60 days after the end of 
     the calendar year in which the abortion was performed or 
     attempted.
       ``(2) Contents of summary.--The summary shall include the 
     number of abortions performed or attempted on an unborn child 
     who had a post-fertilization age of 20 weeks or more and 
     specify the following for each abortion under subsection 
     (b)(2)(B)--
       ``(A) the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn 
     child;
       ``(B) the method used to carry out the abortion;
       ``(C) the location where the abortion was conducted;
       ``(D) the exception under subsection (b)(2)(B) under which 
     the abortion was conducted; and
       ``(E) any incident of live birth resulting from the 
     abortion.
       ``(3) Exclusions from data submissions.--A summary required 
     under this subsection shall not contain any information 
     identifying the woman whose pregnancy was terminated and 
     shall be submitted consistent with the Health Insurance 
     Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 
     note).
       ``(4) Public report.--The Center shall annually issue a 
     public report providing statistics by State for the previous 
     year compiled from all of the summaries made to the Center 
     under this subsection. The Center 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. The 
     annual report shall be issued by July 1 of the calendar year 
     following the year in which the abortions were performed or 
     attempted.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Abortion.--The term `abortion' means the use or 
     prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other 
     substance or device--
       ``(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman 
     known to be pregnant; or
       ``(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman 
     known to be pregnant, with an intention other than--
       ``(i) after viability to produce a live birth and preserve 
     the life and health of the child born alive; or
       ``(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.
       ``(2) Attempt.--The term `attempt', with respect to an 
     abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the 
     actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in 
     a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an 
     abortion.
       ``(3) Counseling.--The term `counseling' means counseling 
     provided by a counselor licensed by the State, or a victims 
     rights advocate provided by a law enforcement agency.
       ``(4) Facility.--The term `facility' means any medical or 
     counseling group, center or clinic and includes the entire 
     legal entity, including any entity that controls, is 
     controlled by, or is under common control with such facility.
       ``(5) Fertilization.--The term `fertilization' means the 
     fusion of human spermatozoon with a human ovum.
       ``(6) Medical treatment.--The term `medical treatment' 
     means treatment provided at a hospital licensed by the State 
     or operated under authority of a Federal agency, at a medical 
     clinic licensed by the State or operated under authority of a 
     Federal agency, or from a personal physician licensed by the 
     State.
       ``(7) Minor.--The term `minor' means an individual who has 
     not attained the age of 18 years.
       ``(8) Perform.--The term `perform', with respect to an 
     abortion, includes inducing an abortion through a medical or 
     chemical intervention including writing a prescription for a 
     drug or device intended to result in an abortion.

[[Page H7715]]

       ``(9) Physician.--The term `physician' means a person 
     licensed to practice medicine and surgery or osteopathic 
     medicine and surgery, or otherwise legally authorized to 
     perform an abortion.
       ``(10) 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.
       ``(11) 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 post-fertilization 
     age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is planned 
     to be performed or induced.
       ``(12) 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.
       ``(13) 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.
       ``(14) Woman.--The term `woman' means a female human being 
     whether or not she has reached the age of majority.''.
       (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. 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 House Resolution 548, the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Handel) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Georgia.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. HANDEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 36.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable 
Unborn Child Protection Act, also known as Micah's Law.
  This bill prohibits most elective abortions at 20 weeks after 
fertilization and thereafter. That is the beginning of the fifth month 
of pregnancy. That is the point in a pregnancy when a substantial body 
of medical evidence shows that a baby in the womb can feel pain.
  H.R. 36 is humane legislation for innocent babies and for mothers. It 
includes exceptions for the life of the mother and exceptions in the 
case of rape and incest. Additionally, this bill imposes criminal 
liability only on the medical professional performing that abortion, 
not on the mother.
  Mr. Speaker, there is broad consensus within the medical community 
babies at 5 months in the womb are not only able to feel pain, they can 
hear music. They can even respond to human voices.
  America is one of only seven countries in the world that still allows 
elective late-term abortions, joining North Korea and China.
  Today, we understand so much more about a baby's development during a 
pregnancy. Voluntarily terminating the life of an innocent baby when we 
know that baby can feel pain can no longer be acceptable, and a 
majority of Americans agree.
  Hearts and minds are changing. How many of us have marveled at the 
vivid sonogram images of a soon-to-be-born son, niece, or grandchild? 
How many of us have been amazed and so very grateful that babies born 
early, as early as 20 weeks, have a very real chance of survival?

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects today's medical understanding about a 
baby's ability to feel pain. Micah's Law reflects those changing hearts 
and minds of Americans. Micah's Law reflects the higher aspirations of 
this Nation, a truly moral nation, to foster a culture of life.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 36.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks today by extending my 
condolences to the family and friends of the 59 individuals killed in 
the shooting in Las Vegas, and I express my best hopes for the recovery 
of the more than 500 persons who were injured.
  This Congress has a responsibility to find a way to prevent tragedies 
like this, as well as the daily incidents of gun violence in our 
communities, but instead of considering legislation to prevent gun 
violence, the House is spending today pushing a 20-week abortion ban 
that will disproportionately hurt women and families who face some of 
the most medically complex situations imaginable.
  So it is with great pleasure that I oppose H.R. 36, because it is a 
dangerous and far-reaching attack on a woman's constitutional right to 
choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.
  Roe v. Wade's basic holding is that a woman has a constitutional 
right to have an abortion prior to the fetus' viability, which is 
generally considered by the experts to be around 24 weeks from 
fertilization. By banning previability abortions, H.R. 36 is a direct 
challenge to Roe.
  Another serious flaw, in my view, of H.R. 36 is that its narrow rape 
exception completely misconstrues the difficult challenges that 
survivors of sexual assault face and the very real reasons why a rape 
or incest may go unreported. So by requiring that a rape or incest 
survivor provide documentation to corroborate her statement that she 
was raped, the bill's sponsors seem to be saying that maybe women 
cannot be trusted to tell the truth about sexual assault, and they 
certainly cannot be trusted to make their own private healthcare 
decisions.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous and mean-spirited 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), my esteemed colleague, the Judiciary 
Committee chairman.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, since the Supreme Court's decision in 
Roe v. Wade, medical knowledge regarding the development of unborn 
babies and their capacities at various stages of growth has advanced 
dramatically.
  To give you a sense of how much technology has advanced, the issue of 
The New York Times announcing the Roe v. Wade decision, in 1973, 
contained ads for the latest in technology, including a computer the 
size of a file cabinet that you could rent for $3,000 a month that only 
had a fraction, thousandths, of the memory of a modern cellphone, and a 
basic AM radio that was as big as your hand.
  At the time, there was nothing like the stunningly detailed images of 
unborn children that are so commonly celebrated on social media today.
  Close to 45 years later, in the age of ultrasound pictures, the same 
newspaper reported on the latest research on the pain experienced by 
unborn children, focusing on that of Dr. Sunny Anand, an Oxford-trained 
neonatal pediatrician who held an appointment at Harvard Medical 
School.
  As Dr. Anand has testified regarding abortions: ``If the fetus is 
beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain 
caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating 
pain.''
  Congress has the power, and the responsibility, to acknowledge these 
developments in our understanding of the ability of unborn children to 
feel pain by prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks' pregnancy 
postfertilization, the point at which scientific evidence shows the 
unborn can experience great suffering. The bill before us does just 
that, and, in doing so, it saves lives.
  In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is so confident 
that this bill would save lives that it took the rare step of 
estimating the number of lives that would be saved if this bill is 
enacted. The CBO conservatively estimates that this bill would

[[Page H7716]]

save over 2,000 lives each year, giving America the gift of thousands 
more children with all the wondrous human gifts they will bring to the 
world in so many amazing forms for generations to come.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Judiciary Committee member Trent 
Franks for introducing this vital legislation. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill both on behalf of unborn children and on behalf of 
the voters you represent, who overwhelmingly support this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time to speak on this important 
subject. While it is important, it is also embarrassing somewhat to us, 
because I listen to the other side, and the first thing that the 
chairman does over here is he shows a New York Times ad. And because of 
The New York Times ad at the time of Roe v. Wade, he suggests that we 
should turn over Roe v. Wade because it is antiquated.
  Well, in 1791, the Second Amendment was adopted, and we had pistols, 
and we had guns that you could shoot one bullet at a time; and 
yesterday, we had a man in Las Vegas with guns who could shoot ``da da 
da da da da da da da'' and kill 59 people and wound 500.
  If you get me an ad from 1791, those weapons were not in that ad, but 
do they talk about changing the Second Amendment, do they talk about 
protecting Americans from that type of violence? No. They come here and 
talk about protecting the unborn, forgetting about the rights of women 
guaranteed them by Roe v. Wade, the law of the land, which is the law 
of the land that says viability comes at 24 weeks.

  They talk about what they say are medical experts and a substantial 
body of medical evidence. What they don't tell you is the American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are against this bill, and 
there is no medical group or medical society in this country that is 
for this bill, but they know more about medicine and about pain for the 
unborn than do the doctors and the scientists.
  They bring this to us, an unconstitutional bill, an unconstitutional 
bill that the CBO estimates will cost us from $65 million to $335 
million over 10 years. Their concern about the budget goes out the 
window.
  The truth of the matter is this goes back to the Rules Committee 
debate on this bill. We were told: It is popular; the polls show people 
want this.
  This is a political bill that has had no hearing in the Judiciary 
Committee, had no markup in the Judiciary Committee. That is called 
regular order, something we were promised by the Speaker, a new day in 
Congress. We were going to have opportunities for both sides to debate, 
the kind of things John McCain, a great American hero, sees as wrong in 
the Senate, which is just as wrong in the House: two sides coming 
together to debate, to vote, to amend, to discuss. No.
  It comes straight to the floor because it is politically popular, 
more politically popular this week than having a bill to allow for 
silencers for weapons, which was going to be the bill du jour for this 
week, but it was pulled.
  Instead, we got this unconstitutional law that flies in the face of 
Roe v. Wade, takes rights away from women and treats them without 
exceptions that are necessary to make a law proper concerning rape and 
incest.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wagner). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The bottom line is, this bill is unconstitutional, an attack on 
women's rights, an attack on the Constitution, and we should be looking 
at changes in our laws about guns and violence, at least mental health, 
something to respond to what happened in Las Vegas, instead of another 
moment of silence.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Franks), my colleague and the lead sponsor of Micah's Law.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, for the sake of all of those 
who founded this Nation and dreamed of what America could someday be, 
and for the sake of all of those since then who have died in darkness 
so that all of us as Americans could walk in the light of freedom in 
this moment, it is so very important that those of us who are 
privileged to be Members of this United States Congress pause from time 
to time and remind ourselves of why we are really all here.
  Thomas Jefferson, whose words marked the beginning of this Nation, 
said: ``The care of human life and happiness, and not their 
destruction, is the first and only object of good government.''
  The phrase in the Fifth Amendment encapsulates our entire 
Constitution. It says, no person shall ``be deprived of life, liberty, 
or property, without due process of law.''
  The 14th Amendment says, no State shall ``deny to any person within 
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.''
  Madam Speaker, protecting the lives of all innocent Americans and 
their constitutional rights is why we are really all here, and yet 
today a great and tragic shadow looms over America.
  More than 18,000 very-late-term abortions are occurring in America 
every year, placing the mothers at exponentially greater risk and 
subjecting their little, pain-capable unborn babies to torture and 
death without anesthesia or Federal protection of any kind; this in the 
land of the free and the home of the brave. It is the greatest and most 
insidious human rights atrocity in the United States today.
  Almost every other major civilized nation on Earth protects pain-
capable unborn babies at this age, and every credible poll of the 
American people shows that they are overwhelmingly in favor of 
protecting them, and yet we have given these little babies less legal 
protection from unnecessary cruelty than the protection we have given 
farm animals under the Federal Humane Slaughter Act.
  Madam Speaker, it seems like we are never quite so eloquent as when 
we decry the crimes of a past generation. And how is it that sometimes 
we are so staggeringly blind when it comes to facing and rejecting the 
worst atrocities in our own time?
  Today, Madam Speaker, I am especially thankful, because the winds of 
change are now beginning to blow and the tide of blindness and blood is 
finally turning in America.
  There is a new leader who lives in the White House, and he is deeply 
committed to protecting the least of these, our little brothers and 
sisters.
  Madam Speaker, today we are poised to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act in this Chamber. No matter how it is shouted down 
or what distortions or deceptive what-ifs, distractions, divisions, 
gotchas, twisting of words, twisting of subject, or blatant falsehoods 
the abortion industry hurls at this bill and its supporters, this bill 
is a deeply sincere effort, beginning at their sixth month of 
pregnancy, to protect both mothers and their pain-capable unborn babies 
from the atrocity of late-term abortion on demand, and ultimately it is 
a bill all humane Americans will support if they truly understand it 
for themselves.

                              {time}  1615

  Madam Speaker, this will be a vote that all of us remember for the 
rest of our lives. It will be a time now for the U.S. Senate to find 
the courage and humanity to take a stand for these, the most helpless 
of all human victims. The Senate's action will be considered in the 
annals of history and, I believe, in the counsels of eternity itself.
  Madam Speaker, passing this bill really shouldn't be so hard because, 
in spite of all the political noise, protecting little pain-capable, 
unborn children and their mothers is not a Republican issue and it is 
not a Democratic issue. It is a test of our basic humanity and who we 
are as a human family.
  It is time for the Members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate to 
open our eyes and our souls and remember that protecting those who 
cannot protect themselves is why we are really all here. It is time for 
us, all of us as Americans, Madam Speaker, to open our eyes and our 
hearts to the humanity of these little pain-capable children of God and 
the inhumanity of what is being done to them.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman

[[Page H7717]]

from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and also Ms. 
Jayapal for allowing me to speak today.
  Madam Speaker, I rise for my former district director Chris and his 
wife, Bridget. This is their story.
  Bridget was pregnant with their very much-wanted second child. After 
the 20th week, they were stunned to learn that the brain stem of the 
fetus was not attached, and if the baby even survived, then the newborn 
would likely die within hours. Doctors told the family, if they wanted 
more children, it would be a good idea to end the pregnancy. After 
consulting with their minister, they decided to do so.
  The happy ending is that a year or so later another child was born, 
and she is happy and healthy today.
  As co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, I know that difficult 
circumstances always surround these highly personal decisions, and I 
don't think that the U.S. Congress is the body that should impose its 
opinion.
  Just imagine the horrible choices families would have to make if H.R. 
36 became law. Ninety-nine percent of abortions are conducted before 
the 20-week mark. Virtually all the rest are just like this situation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the body to reject this bill and to move on to 
important issues that are facing this country.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding, and I thank her for her leadership.
  I would also say to the last speaker, this affects that 1 percent 
that she was referring to.
  Madam Speaker, life is precious. We are reminded of this in ways 
wonderful; we are reminded of this in ways difficult. Today, I rise in 
support of life. I rise in support of Micah's Law. I rise in 
recognition that advancements in technology today both reveal more 
about the stages of life as well as show us the promise for preserving 
it.
  As unpleasant as it may be, technology reveals something to us about 
suffering. It now shows us that the unborn can feel pain inside the 
womb.
  The science is in and the science is real. At 20 weeks old, 
ultrasound images reveal that unborn babies respond to unwanted 
stimuli--to pain--the same exact way adults do: they recoil; they 
contract.
  In cases of abortion, these unborn babies are feeling pain. They 
suffer. That is really hard to hear, and it is really hard to say. But 
now that we are seeing scientific evidence and proof that these babies 
are in pain, the question is: What do we do about it?
  We can't claim ignorance. Their pain is no longer invisible to us, 
and we cannot say, as a society, with a good and upright conscience, 
that we can just continue to ignore it.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, sponsored by our 
colleague Trent Franks, protects these babies by restricting abortion 
to 20 weeks after fertilization occurs, the point at which science has 
proven a baby can feel pain.
  It is easy to turn a blind eye to the pain of others. For a moment, 
you think that if we just ignore it, it will go away and it doesn't 
exist. But our hearts and our minds are always going to remind us.
  We cannot stop the pain of the world by turning away from it. We must 
not turn away from the pain of the most vulnerable among us, the ones 
who have nowhere to run to.
  Madam Speaker, our humanity shines brightest when we stand up for 
those who are suffering, when we protect people from pain. I simply ask 
my colleagues, I implore my fellow Americans, let's be moved by this 
suffering. Let's also be inspired by life.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly urge a ``no'' vote on 
H.R. 36, and I rise today for Gina.
  Gina, who lives in Seattle, found out at her 20-week ultrasound that 
the baby had multiple fetal anomalies, both cardiac and brain, that 
were fatal. The baby would either die before birth or within the first 
few days or weeks of life.
  Gina decided to end the pregnancy, her constitutional right to make 
decisions about her own body. If Gina were in a different State with 
restrictive laws, she would not have been able to get the evidence-
based and compassionate care that she deserved. This important, very 
personal decision was made between Gina and her doctor.
  The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is her right, and yet our 
Republican colleagues continue to try to take that right away from Gina 
and other women in her position.
  This bill not only takes healthcare decisions out of the hands of 
patients, but, Madam Speaker, it could penalize doctors with up to 5 
years in prison for performing these abortions. This is unconscionable.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, Gina and all women deserve to have access 
to care that is comprehensive and compassionate. Madam Speaker, on 
their behalf, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. We must 
stop these bans and support women like Gina to continue to have their 
constitutional rights and to make decisions about their own bodies.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), chairwoman of the Education and the 
Workforce Committee.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for her 
leadership on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act.
  The United States currently stands alongside North Korea, China, and 
Vietnam as one of only seven countries that allow elective abortion to 
occur after 20 weeks postfertilization.
  At this point in their life, unborn babies have a well-developed 
brain and nervous system as well as pain receptors. This fetal 
development is observed by surgeons who routinely see these unborn 
children react to pain. In fact, doctors administer anesthesia to these 
children in the womb during fetal surgeries.
  I am proud to support this bill, also known as Micah's Law, because 
we must care for these unborn children, not cruelly inflict pain and 
deny them their inherent dignity by treating them as objects.
  One day, I hope that a cultural life will take hold in the United 
States and that all children will be protected under the law. However, 
until that day comes, it remains my solemn duty to stand up for life. 
Regardless of the length of this journey, I will continue to speak for 
those who cannot.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to protect the Nation's 
most vulnerable children and ensure they are not subject to 
unimaginable pain and to affirm life by voting in favor of this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, today I rise for Phil and his wife, to 
tell their story.
  Phil and his wife tried to get pregnant for several years. After 
fertility treatment, they were thrilled when his wife finally became 
pregnant with identical twins. Sadly, their twins were diagnosed with 
twin-twin transfusion syndrome, a deadly complication.
  At week 21, Phil and his wife learned the devastating and frightening 
news that not only would both twins die, but that without an abortion, 
his wife was at serious risk of suffering a ruptured uterus.
  Their options were limited. Their doctor could not perform an 
abortion because he was affiliated with a Catholic hospital, and Phil's 
wife was unable to fly due to her high-risk pregnancy. Instead, they 
drove from their home in Missouri to Kansas to terminate the pregnancy 
by induced labor and delivery.
  Phil and his wife were devastated. After the twins' deaths, Phil 
participated in a baptism and grieved their loss.
  Phil wants lawmakers to know: ``Decisions about abortion need to be 
made

[[Page H7718]]

with the families and with the best medical information available.'' As 
he rightly puts it: ``There is no one-size-fits-all situation for all 
pregnancies.'' Placing government limitations on the constitutionally 
protected healthcare options of American women and their families will 
only add heartache and tragedy to these most difficult and painful 
decisions.
  Madam Speaker, on behalf of Phil and his family, I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.)
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Georgia for her leadership on this legislation, and I rise to support 
life.
  Madam Speaker, this is about the values that define us as Americans. 
We see the potential in every life, and that includes the unborn. The 
Micah Act is life-affirming legislation that shows compassion for the 
baby and the mom.
  Ten years ago, I received tough news that our son had Down syndrome, 
an extra 21st chromosome. The doctors told us it would be a long road 
ahead.
  Today, I see more clearly. Too often others try to define a baby's 
future before they are even born. Part of being an American is not 
letting others define us.
  I look at our son, Cole, and I see a healthy 10-year-old working his 
way through fifth grade. His life is different than we imagined--in a 
good way. He lights up a room. People are drawn to him. He plays sports 
and is in Cub Scouts. He is living a full life with huge potential.

  Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this legislation that reflects 
our values and protects the sanctity of life, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding the 
time to me.
  Madam Speaker, more than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court held that 
women have the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy prior to 
viability or at any time to protect the life and health of the mother. 
This bill is flatly unconstitutional on both counts.
  The Supreme Court has blocked every other 20-week ban because 20 
weeks is well before the point of viability. Further, the bill includes 
no exception for the health of the mother, only waiving the ban if a 
woman's life is at imminent risk, in clear violation of a woman's 
constitutional rights.
  Shamefully, the bill places new and cruel restrictions even on women 
accessing abortion after rape or incest.
  Once again, the Republicans are proclaiming the falsehood that 20-
week-old fetuses can feel pain, contrary to the conclusions of every 
reputable researcher in the field.
  What about women like Danielle from New York, who found out in the 
29th week of her pregnancy that her baby's brain was dangerously 
deformed and that, if she and the baby were to survive the pregnancy, 
the baby would only live a short, extremely painful life.
  Danielle and her husband had two young children and faced a 
heartbreaking decision: Should they put Danielle and their family 
through the pain and suffering of a dangerous pregnancy and birth and 
allow their baby to suffer and die in pain, or should she terminate the 
pregnancy and mourn their baby as a family?
  The Constitution guarantees Danielle the right to make that choice 
with her family and her doctors. It does not grant that right to the 
politicians sitting in this room.

                              {time}  1630

  I will close with Danielle's words: ``What my husband and I 
experienced was just so horrible. Unless people have walked in my 
shoes, they don't understand. I did what was right for my son and my 
family, and it's no one else's business.''
  On behalf of Danielle, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
horrible bill. We must stop the bans.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman and 
physician from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, as a proud cosponsor, I rise 
today in support of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection 
Act.
  Before coming to Congress, I worked as an OB/GYN physician for over 
30 years, where I had the tremendous privilege to see life at all 
stages of development. Today's technology, like 3-D and 4-D ultrasound, 
has given us a window into that miracle that shows the unborn child is 
a living, feeling human being.
  Due to medical achievements, premature babies are surviving and 
thriving after being born earlier and earlier, including babies born at 
or before 20 weeks, the 20-week cutoff by this bill. I can give you 
case after case. I have watched these children grow up in my hometown.
  As a physician who has delivered almost 5,000 babies, it is 
unconscionable to me that our government allows innocent lives capable 
of feeling pain and enjoying life to be terminated. It is our 
responsibility as legislators to stand up and protect these lives who 
do not have a voice. This bill is an important step toward that goal, 
and I vote for life.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, today I rise for Stephanie from my 
district. This is her story.
  Stephanie and her husband were building their family. They had one 
beautiful daughter when she got pregnant for the second time, a planned 
and wanted pregnancy.
  But at 19 weeks, Stephanie got heartbreaking news. Her fetus had a 
devastating fatal birth detect. Based on her age, medical history, and 
test results, she was strongly advised to terminate the pregnancy.
  Stephanie ultimately decided not to carry the pregnancy to term. She 
told me, through tears, that her daughter needed her mother, and it 
wasn't worth the risk. It is a profoundly difficult situation for any 
family, but it was their decision.
  H.R. 36 punishes women like Stephanie. It takes personal medical 
decisions out of families' hands and lets politicians decide. It also 
places a cruel burden on survivors of sexual assault and child abuse. 
It is unacceptable.
  On behalf of Stephanie, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' We must 
stop the bans.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to address the House 
of Representatives on this issue, as I seek to do on each pro-life 
issue that we have come before this Congress.
  This is a powerful piece of legislation that has had a lot of hands 
on it to produce good work; and the difference in this debate that you 
hear here, Mr. Speaker, is anecdotes on this side, looking for 
exceptions that might sway, somehow, the people on the side that 
understand the rule is this: life begins at the moment of conception.
  Human life is sacred in all of its forms, and these little babies 
that are 20-weeks mature can and have and do survive outside the womb, 
and they can feel pain inside the womb. And doctors that are doing 
surgery on pregnant mothers give anesthetic to those children because 
they don't want them flinching in the womb and suffering while they do 
the surgery.
  How can we support a ghastly procedure of abortion on demand to end 
the life of the miracles that we need to put this country in the right 
condition?
  Sixty-five percent of the babies 22 to 26 weeks old survive that are 
born premature. As I said, we know they feel pain.
  So I applaud everyone who has done the work on this. I stand solidly 
with the entire pro-life movement we have in this country. We have a 
long ways to go to get to where we need to be, but this is a step in 
the right direction.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).
  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to share Denise's story. 
Already a mother of two young children, Denise was expecting her third 
child. Until her 20-week scan, all her tests had come back perfectly. 
Her entire family was eagerly awaiting a baby boy.
  The scan revealed that her son's brain had several severe 
deformities. He was also showing signs of other complications. It was 
the most painful and devastating day of Denise's life.

[[Page H7719]]

  She spoke to numerous doctors and specialists. She spoke to her 
family and sought the guidance of counselors and professionals.
  Ultimately, she and her husband decided to end the pregnancy. But 
finding a provider and arranging for the procedure was very difficult. 
There was not a single doctor in Virginia she could go to.
  Denise, as a grieving mother in the middle of an absolutely emotional 
crisis, found herself desperately calling doctors and hospitals all 
over the country to access the medical care she needed. Thanks to a 
family friend, she was ultimately able to find a provider in a major 
city within driving distance. H.R. 36 would have denied her that 
chance.
  On behalf of Denise and others like her, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on H.R. 36. We must stop the bans.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise because our family will 
welcome its first grandchild in the coming months. This is her 17-week 
ultrasound, and I cannot wait to meet her. This child is already known 
by her mother, Julia, quoting Psalm 139: ``For You created my inmost 
being; You knit me together in my mother's womb.''

  Mr. Speaker, this child is a gift from God, a gift that we have far 
too often abandoned in this country.
  Today, we know so much more. We know that, after 3 weeks, my 
granddaughter had a heartbeat. After 7 weeks, she began kicking her 
mother, like any good Wagner child would. By week 12, she could suck 
her thumb, and at week 20, my granddaughter knew the sound of her 
mother's voice and could feel pain.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand for life, from conception to natural death. I 
stand for H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. And on 
behalf of my granddaughter, I will continue to fight for the day when 
abortion is not only illegal, but it is unthinkable.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise for Dr. Danielle. Here's her 
story.
  Dr. Danielle recently had three patients drive from North Carolina to 
Washington, D.C., to access abortion care. One patient from Winston was 
diagnosed with Edwards' syndrome just before 20 weeks. Edwards' 
syndrome has no treatment, and it is usually fatal before birth or 
within the first year of life.
  Given the 72-hour waiting period in North Carolina, the patient would 
have passed State limits for when she could access abortion. She had to 
drive more than 6 hours to the Washington, D.C., area for her care.
  North Carolina already has an awful 20-week ban. We don't need this 
ban nationwide.
  On behalf of Dr. Danielle and the women she helped, I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. Stop the bans.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, last week I had the pleasure of meeting 
a young boy named Micah Pickering. He was cute and shy and, you know, 
as young boys often are, he would give me a high five, play around and 
run to where everybody had to catch him.
  Now, he gave me this bracelet. You see, it says: ``Miracles for 
Micah.'' And you know what? He is a miracle. He is strong. He was born 
prematurely at only 20 weeks. He spent the first 128 days of his life 
in a neonatal intensive care unit.
  Though he could fit in the palm of your hand, his parents couldn't 
hold him at first. His skin was so sensitive, the slightest touch would 
cause little Micah intensive pain. It didn't matter where he was. If he 
was in that intensive care unit, or if he was still waiting for that 
expected date to be born, he could feel, and he wanted to live.
  The fact is that children at 20 weeks feel pain. Science increasingly 
shows it. The European Journal of Anesthesiology describes how it is 
critical to administer anesthesia during fetal surgery procedures.
  You know, a standard text on human development, Patten's Foundations 
of Embryology, shows how the basics of the nervous system are formed by 
week 4.
  Dr. Ronald Brusseau, of Boston's Children's Hospital, wrote that by 
week 18, children have developed sensory receptors for pain.
  Two independent studies in 2006 used brain scans and showed unborn 
children respond to pain. These children have noses, eyes, and ears. 
You can hear their heartbeats and feel them move. They are human.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act--I like to call it 
Micah's Law--is called what it is because children like Micah feel 
pain. Those children are strong, just like Micah is strong, and those 
children should be protected.
  Now, I have to admit, Madam Speaker, across the aisle I do hear some 
beautiful speeches filled with compassion for the voiceless, the 
defenseless, and the marginalized. They are trying to speak for those 
who can't speak for themselves.
  But what about Micah? What about the thousands of others like him, 
the same age he was born? What about the millions who were never given 
a chance?
  Look into Micah's face--I think we all should--and tell me he isn't 
human. Look at him when he was born and tell me that child doesn't have 
a right to live.
  We should care for the voiceless, for those whose cries of pain are 
never heard. We should care for the defenseless, for those who will 
only be saved if we act to protect them.
  We should care for the marginalized, for those who have their very 
humanity denied, even as their noses, eyes, ears, and heartbeats, every 
movement are visible testaments of their lives.
  These children need love. Their mothers need love. Let's end the 
pain. These children are suffering, so let's end the pain. These 
children want to live, so let's end their pain.
  Micah is a beautiful kid, and there are millions of Micahs who will 
never smile; Micahs who will never walk; Micahs who will never scrape 
their knees and get into trouble; Micahs who will never learn to read; 
Micahs who will never fall in love and have children of their own; 
Micahs who will never have the chance to tell their mother and father: 
``I love you.''
  We will never know those Micahs. Our lives are poorer because their 
lives were cut short. But there are more. Instead of pain--instead of 
pain--we should fill them with love.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise for Tori. This is her story:
  Tori and her husband planned her pregnancy carefully to make sure 
that her maternity leave worked with her graduate studies, and they 
were thrilled that the plan right for their family came together and 
they were pregnant.
  At 20 weeks, during a routine ultrasound, they were devastated to 
learn that the fetus carried a rare disorder that resulted either in 
the death of the infant shortly after delivery, or a very shortened 
lifespan wrought with profound disability. Their situation was now out 
of control. It is one decision that no parent ever wants to have to 
make.
  Their decision was agonizing: end the pregnancy after 20 weeks or 
watch their child die or suffer.
  Madam Speaker, on behalf of Tori, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on H.R. 36. We must stop the bans.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, a former abortionist, Dr. 
Levatino testified before Congress and described how he and other 
abortionists actually kill helpless babies. He killed 1,200 of them. He 
said: ``Imagine, if you can, that you are a pro-choice OB-GYN like I 
was. Using a Sopher 13-inch clamp with rows of ridges or teeth, grasp 
anything you can inside the womb. Once you grasp something inside, 
squeeze on the clamp, set the jaws and pull hard--really hard. You feel 
something let go, and out pops a fully formed leg about 6 inches long.

[[Page H7720]]

Reach in again and grasp anything you can, and out pops an arm. Reach 
in again, and again, and again with the clamp, and tear out the spine, 
the intestines, the heart and lungs.''
  Even if pain wasn't present, Madam Speaker, dismembering a child is 
violence against children, and it is inhumane. But these babies 
actually suffer excruciating pain during the abortion.
  Dr. Colleen Malloy from Northwestern University has said: ``In 
today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at 20 weeks and are able 
to witness their ex-utero growth. I could never imagine subjecting my 
tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb 
detachment.''
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 36.
  Overwhelming majorities of Americans--some 60-64% according to 
pollsters--support legal protection for pain-capable unborn children.
  Today we know that unborn babies not only die but suffer excruciating 
pain during dismemberment abortion--a cruelty that rips arms and legs 
off a helpless child.
  A former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, testified before Congress 
that he had performed 1,200 abortions--over 100 late-term abortions up 
to 24 weeks.
  Dr. Levatino described what the abortionist actually does to the 
helpless child. ``Imagine if you can that you are a pro-choice 
obstetrician/gynecologist like I was.'' Using a Sopher 13'' clamp with 
rows of ridges or teeth, ``grasp anything you can'' inside the womb. 
``Once you've 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 six inches long. Reach in again and grasp 
anything you can . . . and out pops an arm.'' He noted that ``a second 
trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure.'' He said, ``Reach in 
again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, 
heart and lungs.''
  Madam Speaker, even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy gets it. In 
his dissent to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2000 Stenberg v Carhart 
decision, Justice Kennedy observed that in D&E dismemberment abortions, 
``The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: 
It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. The fetus can be alive 
at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a 
time while its limbs are being torn off.'' Justice Kennedy added in the 
Court's 2007 opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart that D&E abortions are 
``laden with the power to devalue human life . . .''
  Even if pain wasn't present, dismembering a child is violence against 
children and inhumane. But these babies actually suffer.
  Dr. Robert White, professor of neurosurgery at Case Western Reserve 
University said an unborn child at 20 weeks gestation ``is fully 
capable of experiencing pain . . . without question, (abortion) is a 
dreadfully painful experience . . .''
  In an expert report prepared for the U.S. Justice Department, Dr. 
Kanwaljeet S. Anand, a pediatrician specializing in the care of 
critically ill newborns and children who has conducted intensive 
research of pain and stress in the human newborn and fetus said: ``. . 
.the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks 
gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by the fetus is 
possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older 
children . . .'' Why? Dr. Anand points out that ``the highest density 
of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development occurs 
in utero from 20 to 30 weeks gestation . . . Thus, a fetus at 20 to 32 
weeks of gestation would experience a much more intense pain than older 
infants or children or adults.''
  Dr. Colleen Malloy, assistant professor, Division of Neonatology at 
the Northwestern University, in her testimony before the House 
Judiciary Committee said: ``When we speak of infants at 20 weeks post-
fertilization we no longer have to rely on inferences or ultrasound 
imagery, because such premature patients are kicking, moving and 
reacting and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive 
care unit.''
  Dr. Malloy went on to say, ``in today's medical arena, we resuscitate 
patients at this age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth.'' 
She says ``I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to 
horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment or 
cardiac injection''
  In an undercover video released by David Daleidan, a Planned 
Parenthood Medical Director explains that before beginning a late 
abortion she completes a clinical documentation form that says ``I 
intend to utilize dismemberment techniques for this procedure.''
  Notice the words--``dismemberment techniques''--in order to ``extract 
the fetus in multiple parts.''
  But seriously, we've known much of this for years. In 2006 I authored 
the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act that garnered 250 votes in favor--
including 40 Democrats--to 162 against. I remember thinking on the day 
of the vote: ``how can anyone vote to refuse to make child pain 
information part of informed consent?''
  Congressman Trent Franks has authored four extraordinarily important 
bills over the years to actually protect pain-capable babies in federal 
law from the violence of abortion including Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Acts that passed the House of Representatives in 2013 and 
again in 2015. Tragically, President Obama vowed to veto this child 
protection legislation and the Senate failed to even pass it. However, 
should the House pass H.R. 36 today and if the Senate passes it as 
well, President Trump has said he would sign it.
  Not only will babies be protected by federal law at five months and 
the pain suffered by these babies averted, but H.R. 36 requires that a 
late abortion permitted under limited circumstances provide the ``best 
opportunity for the unborn child to survive'' and that ``a second 
physician trained in neonatal resuscitation'' be ``present and prepared 
to provide care to a child'' to the same degree as the Born-Alive 
Infants Protection Act of 2002.
  Thus, ``any health care practitioner present at the time shall 
humanely exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and 
diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably 
diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to a 
child born alive at the same gestational age in the course of a natural 
birth.''
  Moreover, ``following the care required to be rendered . . . the 
child born alive shall be immediately transported and admitted to the 
hospital.''
  Sixteen states have enacted pain-capable unborn child laws that 
closely parallel the bill before us today. These include Ohio, Texas, 
Nebraska, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North 
Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, South Carolina, 
Kentucky and Kansas.
  Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that my colleagues respect unborn 
children as our nation's littlest patients who like any other patient 
may need diagnosis and benign interventions to treat disability or 
disease.
  And preemies are surviving earlier and healthier as technology and 
medical science advance. Micah Pickering is a healthy 5 year old today. 
He was born prematurely at 20 weeks and was the size of this M&M candy 
bag. Micah is the face of the pro-life movement. That is why the bill 
before us today is ``Micah's Law.''
  A recent study of nearly 5,000 babies published in the New England 
Journal of Medicine confirmed that nearly a quarter of the premature 
babies born at 22 weeks survived. (Let me note that the 22 weeks 
gestational age referred to in the study is equivalent to 20 weeks 
fetal age using the age dating system employed by H.R. 36).
  Researchers at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) are 
developing a technology that they hope--in a decade--will be the new 
standard of care for extremely premature infants. Building a bridge 
between the mother's womb and the outside world, the artificial wombs 
provide a soft, sterile, fluid filled environment for the child to 
continue to grow.
  The babies we seek to protect from harm today may survive if treated 
humanely, with expertise and compassion--not the cruelty of the 
abortion.
  Four years ago, Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was 
convicted of murder, conspiracy to kill and involuntary manslaughter 
and sentenced to life imprisonment.
  Even though the news of Gosnell's child slaughter was largely 
suppressed by the mainstream media, many of my colleagues may remember 
that Dr. Gosnell operated a large Philadelphia abortion clinic where 
women died and countless babies were dismembered or chemically 
destroyed often by having their spinal cords snipped----all gruesome 
procedures causing excruciating pain to the victim.
  The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Micah's Law, is needed 
now more than ever because there are Gosnells all over America, 
dismembering and decapitating pain-capable babies for profit. The bill 
protects kids from preventable pain--and death.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, it is always hard for me to understand why 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle embrace junk science, 
whether it is around global warming, where 99 percent of the scientists 
say, yes, it is happening, or in this case.
  We have the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists from 
2010 indicating that ``connections from the periphery to the cortex is 
not intact until 24 weeks. The cortex is necessary for pain 
perception.''

[[Page H7721]]

  In 2012, ACOG, in the Journal of American Medical Association 
embraced that statement. So the vast majority of physicians and 
scientists say there is not pain perception at 20 weeks.
  But let me talk about Dr. Jenn and Sammi. Sammi was 17, terrified, 
and pregnant when she went to a ``clinic'' that ended up being a crisis 
pregnancy center. The center gave Sammi a free, private ultrasound, 
which was actually broadcast throughout the clinic for all to see--a 
violation, I might say, of HIPAA. When Sammi said she wanted to end the 
pregnancy, the center called her almost daily saying she would die, get 
sick, and go to hell.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wagner). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. SPEIER. The center also lied about her due date, telling Sammi it 
was too late for an abortion. Finally, Sammi called her mom, who flew 
her to California to see Dr. Jenn.
  On behalf of Dr. Jenn and Sammi, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on H.R. 36.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, Maddie Brinckerhoff was an early 
feminist author and lecturer from the Midwest, where I live, and she 
had this to say about abortion: ``It is evidence that either by 
education or circumstances that she''--the woman--``has been greatly 
wronged.''
  In this spirit, Madam Speaker, I think there is an opportunity here 
to perhaps bring Congress together around a humane proposition that 
requires thoughtful but necessary reflection on the deepest meanings of 
pain.
  We all know pain. But pain teaches us profound lessons about 
suffering, sacrifice, patience, and the redemptive healing 
possibilities of encountering one another in our vulnerability as 
humans living in the interdependency of community. Pain is something 
from which we naturally recoil, but it also enables us to build 
compassion toward those who are weak, or dependent, or alone.
  Madam Speaker, in letting our natural impulse to respond to another 
who is in pain, we can grasp what it means to be truly ourselves, to be 
truly human, and to care deeply about everyone, and to really 
internalize what is at issue here.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 36, which is a 
nationwide 20-week abortion ban. I would like to share a story about 
Lindsey, a woman from California.
  Lindsey ended her pregnancy at 24 weeks, after a devastating 
diagnosis. When Lindsey had her 12-week ultrasound, everything looked 
completely normal. But the picture was different at the 21-month 
anatomy scan. Lindsey and her husband learned that their baby girl had 
lethal skeletal dysplasia. Lindsey sought out additional opinions from 
three maternal-fetal specialists. They all agreed that her lungs were 
not developing properly and she would not survive. Lindsey and her 
husband chose to end the pregnancy at 24 weeks.
  Lindsey wants lawmakers to know: ``If I had to carry her to term, she 
would not have survived. As her mother, it is my right to spare her 
suffering, and that is what I did.''
  The cruel ban on the floor today would only make these heart-
wrenching situations worse for families like Lindsey's. On behalf of 
Lindsey, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. Republicans 
should stop playing politics with women's lives and focus on the real 
problems facing this government and this country, and stop interfering 
in the private lives of women. We must stop this ban.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is difficult to imagine what could be 
more important than establishing who is protected under the law and who 
is not; who is given a chance of life and who is denied it.
  As technology continues to evolve, the more we can celebrate the 
ability we have to save a baby at just 20 weeks after conception is 
truly remarkable. I remember when I first became a nurse some 40 years 
ago. I vowed to devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my 
care, whether they were born or unborn. I am still committed to that 
today. And 40 years later, the science tells us that after 20 weeks of 
pregnancy, unborn babies are able to feel pain inside the womb.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act protects those who 
cannot protect themselves when handed a death sentence.
  Madam Speaker, there are currently seven countries in the world that 
allow elective late abortions, countries such as North Korea and China.
  Why in the world is the United States on a list of countries 
characterized as human rights abusers?
  Our Nation can do better than that.
  I have seen how special care is given to reduce the pain of these 
precious premature babies at 20 weeks in the NICU. Unborn children in 
the womb at this stage should be protected, too, and we must pass the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to give these unborn children 
a chance to see the light of day.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from Georgia has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, today I rise for Emilia. 
This is her story:
  Eighteen years ago, Emilia was pregnant with her second child. She 
was happily married, financially secure, and eager to welcome a new 
baby into her family. After Emilia's baby was diagnosed with Down 
syndrome, she was even more determined to raise her baby with love and 
compassion.
  Imagine her devastation when, after a 20-week ultrasound, the baby 
was diagnosed with fetal hydrops and a battery of tests revealed her 
baby would not survive to term. Emilia made a wrenching decision to 
terminate her pregnancy rather than have her baby suffer.
  Emilia's hospital didn't provide abortion services, so she went to 
Boston and had to pass through a wall of picketers that told her she 
was a murderer.
  In the waiting room, she realized every other patient had the same 
story: no one was carrying a healthy baby. Every woman there was 
experiencing profound loss.
  Under a 20-week ban, none of these moms can make a decision for their 
families with their doctors. We would make that decision for them in 
Congress.
  On behalf of Emilia, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. 
We must stop the ban.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Handel for 
yielding.
  As a former minister and as an American, even as a human being, I 
believe that every boy and girl is conceived with God-given potential 
and unique talents and abilities--abilities they will use to serve 
others and make a difference.
  Let me put it this way: I know a young man named Luke. Luke's mother 
was in for a surprise when, at only 24 weeks into her pregnancy, her 
baby boy decided it was time to meet the world. To make a long story 
short, Luke worked through complications with his family, and he serves 
in our district office in North Carolina.
  Every life is an opportunity. Every life is precious.
  A little earlier we were challenged by the accusation that 
Republicans only are concerned about budget. It goes out the window 
when it comes to this issue.
  You know what?
  You are right. We don't put a price on life. We cherish it.
  Madam Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of the Pain-Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, today I rise for Donna. This 
is her story:

[[Page H7722]]

  She said it was a miracle. At age 41, she was finally pregnant. Early 
blood tests and ultrasound showed a healthy fetus. Donna was filled 
with the joy of an expectant mother. Then tragedy struck. Her fetus 
stopped growing at 26 weeks. An ultrasound showed anencephaly, a fetus 
without a brain, a fetus that could not sustain life on its own.
  Madam Speaker, this 20-week abortion bill is cruel punishment for 
women like Donna, forcing them to face weeks of pregnant agony with no 
hope for the life that they so wanted. This is a bill that inflicts 
pain, not stops it, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Babin).
  Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, as the father of 5 and the grandfather of 
13, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act, also known as Micah's Law, named after Micah 
Pickering.
  Micah was born prematurely at 22 weeks of age. In fact, the same age 
and exact stage of development that the current despicable policy 
permits for legal, on-demand abortion.
  After receiving intensive care in his infancy, Micah is now an 
active, healthy, and happy kindergartner. Micah is living proof that we 
need to pass H.R. 36. Congress needs to take this crucial step to 
ensure the protection of thousands of innocent lives every year, 
innocent lives just like precious Micah.
  The scientific evidence is overwhelming that, by at least 20 weeks of 
age, unborn babies can feel excruciating pain during typical abortion 
procedures. This is both cruel and inhumane. As Members of Congress, it 
is our duty and our moral obligation to pass this commonsense 
legislation.
  We must protect the most defenseless. Enough is enough. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this critical bill to protect the 
sanctity of every human life. God knows it is time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, today I rise for Eva, an Oregon doctor 
who is one of the compassionate providers women turn to when facing an 
unintended or dangerous pregnancy.
  Oregon has rejected restrictions on abortions, but because of bans or 
restrictions in other States, Dr. Eva provides healthcare services, 
including abortion, to women from around the country.

                              {time}  1700

  One patient was a high school senior who could not get an abortion in 
her home State. She spent weeks saving every penny she could to buy a 
plane ticket and pay for the procedure.
  Instead of making women fly across the country, instead of debating 
this bill, and instead of cutting programs like the Teen Pregnancy 
Prevention Program, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have done, we should be focused on preventing unintended pregnancies, 
and we should be expanding access to comprehensive reproductive care, 
something the Oregon Legislature did when they passed the landmark 
Reproductive Health Equity Act.
  Madam Speaker, when abortion is banned, it does not go away. It 
drives women to unsafe back alleys and to dangerous self-induced 
abortions. We must stop efforts to stand between women and their 
healthcare providers. Please vote ``no'' on H.R. 36.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
  Mr. HULTGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 36, the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  Multiple scientific studies indicate that, by 20 weeks after 
fertilization, an unborn child's brain and nervous system have 
developed sufficiently for that child to feel pain. The United States 
stands among only a handful of nations that permit elective abortions 
after 20 weeks. It should pain us all that we fall into the same camp 
as North Korea and China.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will moderate our 
extreme position and ensure we protect the most vulnerable, like Micah 
Pickering, a lively 5-year-old I met last week. Micah was born 
prematurely at the same age children would be protected under H.R. 36. 
Micah was able to survive and thrive after spending nearly 4 months in 
the neonatal intensive care unit. He is now in kindergarten, and I 
found out when talking to him that we share a love of Legos.
  The bottom line is this: 20 weeks is halfway through a pregnancy. It 
is too late to end the life of an unborn baby. It violates what 
Americans want, it violates science, and it violates our country's most 
enduring values.
  Madam Speaker, I urge passage of Micah's Law, H.R. 36.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise for a second time today in strident opposition 
to H.R. 36.
  This bill is unconstitutional, and it is an overt attempt to 
challenge women's constitutional right to a safe and legal abortion.
  It is really disturbing that funding for the Children's Health 
Insurance Program and community health centers has expired, but yet 
this majority is focusing on doubling down on their crusade against 
women's healthcare.
  Let's talk about pain a little bit here. What is especially painful 
about this bill is that there is an exception in this bill for rape 
victims only when they report to law enforcement officials, thus 
resurrecting the debunked legitimate rape argument.
  Many women can't report rape for a variety of reasons, probably also 
including the sanctimonious social stigma that their Congressman or 
Congresswoman would place upon them. So this bill underhandedly 
revictimizes vulnerable rape survivors.
  Madam Speaker, I am a survivor of rape. That is painful. This bill is 
a cruel and ruthless attempt to undermine women and attack our rights 
to govern our bodies, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote against 
this unconstitutional bill.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  We have a responsibility to defend the most vulnerable in our Nation, 
and that is exactly what this legislation does: it protects unborn 
children from abortion at 5 months.
  It is truly disheartening that I have to beg many of my colleagues to 
support a bill like this when it is scientifically proven that unborn 
babies feel pain after 5 months. Premature infants in the NICU are 
protected from pain. Children in the womb should be protected from pain 
also.
  I will always fight for the right to life, and I believe we have a 
responsibility to defend all innocent lives. In fact, this is close to 
home. I have four children: one son and three daughters. I have had to 
see both my wife and each one of my daughters experience difficult 
pregnancies and make difficult choices. I can't imagine life without my 
four children and my 12 beautiful grandchildren.
  Every child should be given a chance at life. New life is created by 
God, and we must give a voice to these precious babies who cannot speak 
for themselves. Our Nation can and must protect the most vulnerable 
among us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Carbajal).
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Conyers for yielding to 
me.
  Madam Speaker, today I rise for Katie in California and in support of 
women everywhere who have relied on access to safe abortion procedures 
in their lifetime.
  When Katie and her husband found out as newlyweds that Katie was 
pregnant, they were overjoyed. Eighteen weeks later, they discovered 
that the fetus had multiple severe health problems, including spina 
bifida and a tethered spinal cord. This news was heartbreaking, and 
Katie and her husband made the decision to end the pregnancy at 22 
weeks.
  Katie wants lawmakers in Washington to know that it is not their

[[Page H7723]]

right to make this decision for her or other women. She says that it is 
a horrific situation, and until you have been through it, you have no 
idea, and you can't make that decision for someone else.

  On behalf of Katie, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. 
We must stop the bans.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  It is a long title for a bill; however, we are talking about 
protecting unborn children. As it has been obvious here today, it is 
always difficult to talk about this issue, but when we talk about pain-
capable unborn children, we are referring to, in particular, children 
who are still in the womb at 20 weeks.
  As it has been pointed out by my colleagues time and time again, 
scientists have proven that unborn children, even at 20 weeks old, are 
capable of feeling pain. The goal of this legislation is to protect 
these children by ensuring that they cannot be aborted.
  Today, if a physician performs an in utero surgery on a 20-week-old 
unborn child, the standard protocol for the child is to be treated as a 
patient, not just a blob of tissue. That child would be given an 
injection of pain medication before the surgery, and this is above and 
beyond the anesthesia given to the mother before the surgery.
  These babies have demonstrated to medical experts that they respond 
to painful stimuli because they flinch and they recoil from sharp 
objects.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
legislation when it comes to the floor. Let's do the right thing and 
protect unborn children.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is a senior member on the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Conyers and I can remember the same type of hearings and the same 
type of legislation many years ago, again denying women their 
constitutional rights. I can see as clear as I can see you, Madam 
Speaker, the women who were sitting and begging us not to undermine 
them, their doctor, and their faith.
  So I rise today to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: 
You have got it wrong. There are no mass abortions. There is no call 
for mass abortions. The women that are undergoing these procedures are 
women who have prayed and who have looked to their faith, their doctor, 
and their family.
  So I oppose this bill because it puts the lives of women at risk, it 
interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, 
and it diverts attention from the real problem facing American women. 
Let us reauthorize SCHIP. People are crying about that in my district. 
How outrageous.
  One of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb 
access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances. It is 
these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur after 
20 weeks.
  What number did I say? 10? 20? 1.5, and this is not diminishing the 
aspects of this.
  But it is those women who have prayed. They have sought doctors' 
help, and they, as well, have sought their family's consultation.
  We are making a mockery of these women. These women are not standing 
on the street corner saying, ``I want to have an abortion.'' They have 
a serious situation, like April Salazar.
  At 18 weeks, she and her husband found out that their baby had a 
lethal diagnosis, and if she carried the pregnancy to term and he was 
born alive, he would die shortly from suffocation. It is not pain of 
getting him out--he would die. April hoped the news wasn't true, so she 
requested more tests to confirm the diagnosis. At 21 weeks she had an 
abortion. This bill would have stopped April.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. This would have stopped April, her husband, her 
family, her God, and her doctor from making the decision.
  Even the exceptions are bogus because you frighten these women. The 
idea of Jeni, in my home State, where they had a 2-day waiting period 
listening to a mandatory script about abortion and a sign-off from two 
separate doctors. Once you start this, you are taking it away from 
women who have sought their faith leader, their doctor, and their 
family.
  This is a bad bill. We need to do some important things. I would hope 
with the carnage of Las Vegas, to save lives, we would ban assault 
weapons and we would not have that gentleman having 42 guns in his home 
and in his possession. That is what we need to fight to save lives, not 
this bill that undermines the rights of women and their faith and their 
doctor.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, the ``Pain 
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act'' and the underlying bill.
  I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation the last time 
it was brought to the floor.
  I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women 
at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of 
privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the 
American people.
  A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating 
the Rights of Women Act of 2017.''
  Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across 
the aisle should be working with Democrats to help rebuild the ravaged 
communities hit by hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.
  Madam Speaker, we could and should instead be voting reauthorize the 
important SCHIP program that has helped families get on their feet for 
years.
  Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for 
the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote 
comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing 
the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's 
decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
  The one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible 
``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and poses a 
nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a 
direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.
  Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is 
that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of 
circumstances.
  It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur 
after 20 weeks.
  Women like Jeni from Texas, who, at 21 weeks, was told that her fetus 
had multiple severe defects.
  Jeni could end the pregnancy or wait for the fetus to miscarry or 
die.
  There was no way that the pregnancy would end in a live, healthy 
baby.
  Jeni and her husband chose to terminate the pregnancy, but because 
they live in Texas, they were forced to endure several cruel 
restrictions: a two-day waiting period, listening to a mandatory script 
about abortion, and a sign-off from two separate doctors.
  Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different.
  No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is 
best for a woman and her family.
  These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in 
consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.
  Madam Speaker, I also strongly oppose H.R. 36 because it lacks the 
necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.
  In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a 
woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to 
protect her health prior to viability.
  While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus 
of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not 
occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.
  By prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at ``the probable post-
fertilization age'' of 20 weeks, H.R. 36 violates this clear and long 
standing constitutional rule.
  Madam Speaker, the constitutionally protected right to privacy 
encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy 
before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a 
threat to her health and safety.
  This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.
  I strongly oppose H.R. 36 and urge all Members to join me in voting 
against this unwise measure that put the lives and health of women at 
risk.
  I would like to include in the Record stories from two women:

       April Salazar, New York: ``It would have been too hard for 
     me to carry to term, and it

[[Page H7724]]

     seemed pointless to make the baby suffer too when she would 
     never survive.''
       At 18 weeks, April and her husband found out that their 
     baby had lethal skeletal dysplasia. He would never be able to 
     breathe on his own. If she carried the pregnancy to term and 
     he was born alive, he would die shortly after of suffocation. 
     April hoped the news wasn't true, so she requested more tests 
     to confirm the diagnosis, which took two weeks. At 21 weeks, 
     she had an abortion. April shares her story because she has 
     found that it can change opinions. Several people she knows 
     personally who previously had been anti-abortion told her 
     that they would have done the same thing she did.
       Julie Bindeman, Maryland: ``Everything about a later 
     termination is already so incredibly difficult even just 
     picking up the phone to make the appointment. The 20-week ban 
     adds another hurdle. It's just cruel.''
       Julie's doctor told her and her husband that their son's 
     brain had a serious abnormality, a diagnosis that they 
     confirmed with tests, more ultrasounds, and an MRI. If the 
     baby survived birth, he would never speak, walk, or have 
     conscious thoughts based upon what had developed in his 
     brain. Julie and her husband decided to end the pregnancy, 
     and the soonest they could get the appointment was at 22 
     weeks. Julie could not find a surgeon in Maryland at that 
     time willing to perform the procedure, so she had to be 
     induced for labor and delivery. Her baby was born alive and 
     died very shortly after.

  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Marshall).
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, for the past 25 years, I have had the 
privilege of delivering over 5,000 babies. I am absolutely convinced 
that babies can feel pain at 14 weeks. At 16 weeks, they can recognize 
their mom's voice, their brother's voice, and their sister's voice.
  Once or twice a year, I have been in that delivery room and have been 
forced to deliver a very premature baby, a 22-week or a 24-week baby. 
We are doing everything we can to save the life of that baby, calling 
in pediatricians and anesthesia people, doing everything heroically 
possible.
  How can we live in a world where we are trying to save that baby's 
life in one room, and just down the road there are people killing that 
baby, tearing it apart limb by limb and decapitating it? What type of a 
world do we live in these days? How can both of those situations exist 
in this same country?
  We have to ban these late-term abortions.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  Mr. MESSER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act.
  Our Nation has long recognized that we are all endowed by our creator 
with certain inalienable rights, chief among them is the right to life. 
I am unapologetically pro-life because all human life has dignity and 
should be protected, especially the lives of defenseless unborn 
children.
  Today the House is taking a critical but seemingly uncontroversial 
step forward in protecting life by prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks 
of pregnancy, or put another way, when unborn children can feel pain.
  Currently, the United States is one of only seven countries 
worldwide, including North Korea, that still allow late-term abortions. 
This bill would end these horrific procedures.
  I pray that one day our Nation will protect all unborn children, but 
this important bill is a big step forward towards that goal.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. ENGEL. Today, I rise for Dr. Erica of New York. This is her 
story.
  Dr. Erica's patient was raped by an unknown assailant. The patient's 
emotions surrounding the pregnancy were extremely complex. She 
desperately wanted to have a child but felt guilt, shame, and isolation 
after being raped.
  She ultimately decided to continue the pregnancy. She believed it 
would help her grieve and grasp onto something positive after such a 
traumatic experience.
  But then the patient went in for a scan at 20 weeks and was 
devastated to learn that the fetus had multiple lethal anomalies. This 
patient had to face yet another agonizing decision. Ultimately, she 
decided to end the pregnancy.
  Thankfully, Dr. Erica was able to help this patient through the most 
difficult time in her life. I want to share her words: ``As a 
physician, it is my job to guide the patient through the risks, 
benefits, and alternatives of all options available to her. It is not 
my job to place judgment on patients that only serve to punish women 
who are already suffering, and it certainly is not the job of the 
legislature to interfere with the patient-physician relationship.''
  On behalf of Dr. Erica and the women she helps, I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no.'' We must support every woman's right to make 
reproduction choices for herself.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mast).
  Mr. MAST. Madam Speaker, this legislation does stir a great number of 
emotions in me. I do know what it is to protect life, take life, and to 
see life lost, and our role should always be to protect the innocent.
  But I also know that our role as a society has been to subsidize the 
genocide of our unborn, and that reflects how desensitized we have 
become to the true value of a child each year, as we kill hundreds of 
thousands of the most innocent among us: unborn children who smile, who 
grab, and who are self-aware and feel pain.
  If we truly are what we do, then who are we if we purposely bring 
unthinkable pain to a baby boy or baby girl just before their life is 
snuffed out of them?
  This legislation is a leap forward for our collective conscience as a 
nation, and it is a strong step forward in returning value to life that 
we see, especially the most unique life that exists out there: that 
special creature that was created by God.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Georgia has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of this 
legislation, I rise towards the end of this long debate to reiterate a 
central idea: the reason behind this legislation is because of what we 
stand for as Americans.
  The Declaration of Independence, as we know, is our Nation's birth 
certificate, and it states very succinctly in the second paragraph what 
has come to be known as the American's Creed: ``We hold these truths to 
be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed 
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.''
  The reason that the Founders put the right to life first, listed as 
our most fundamental freedom, is because they understood that we are 
made in the image of a holy God.
  Our creator, who gave us those unalienable rights, is the one who 
made each and every one of us. Because of that, there is a central 
truth that comes through: every single person, every single life, is of 
inestimable dignity and value. Your value is not related in any way to 
where you went to school, what you make for a living, how good-looking 
you are, how talented you are, what your fortune was in life, whether 
or not you have a physical disability. Your value is inherent in who 
you are as a creation of the God who made you.
  That is the reason we stand for this. It is the reason the bill is so 
important. We urge our colleagues to support it today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, H.R. 36 is a dangerous and 
unconstitutional bill that demonstrates a fundamental distrust of women 
to make private decisions that are best for themselves and their 
families. It is, therefore, unsurprising that this legislation is 
strongly opposed by the Nation's leading civil rights organizations, 
the medical profession, and women's groups.
  In addition, 36 religious organizations noted in a letter to Members 
opposing this bill that the decision to end a pregnancy must be left to 
an individual woman, in consultation with her

[[Page H7725]]

family, doctors, and any others she chooses to involve, in keeping with 
her personal beliefs.
  Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to please 
oppose this dangerous legislation, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. HANDEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, we have heard many impassioned stories this afternoon.
  Much has changed since Roe v. Wade was upheld in the 1970s. We have 
made extraordinary medical advances. Today, we know with great 
certainty that babies in the womb, starting at the fifth month of 
pregnancy, do indeed feel pain.
  It is extraordinarily heartbreaking when an unborn baby is diagnosed 
with a severe and life-threatening abnormality, still that baby 
deserves a right to life and right to dignity.
  My sister was born with no esophagus and given little hope to live. 
By the grace of God and a miracle, within just weeks of her birth, a 
new technology, a new treatment came forward. Today, she is the proud 
mother of my two nieces.
  Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It is a just bill. It is a moral 
bill to do what we are called to do, not just as Americans but as human 
beings: to protect lives of the most innocent.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support and urge every colleague to vote in 
support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  H.R. 36 would prohibit the performance or attempted performance of an 
abortion after 20 weeks, and harshly punishes physicians who violate 
the law. This bill has narrow exemptions for the life of a mother (rape 
and incest) but there are no exemptions in the bill for conditions 
where the fetus has conditions or diagnoses that are incompatible with 
life.
  We have spent the entirety of this Congress defending women's 
reproductive rights and fighting against plans that would eliminate 
funding and access to the health care providers of a woman's choosing. 
This bill is yet another attack on a woman's right to decide what is 
best for her and her body. A woman, not a politician, must be able to 
make health decisions that are best for her own circumstances.
  H.R. 36 ignores that every pregnancy is different and compromises a 
woman's right to the health care she is legally entitled to. It 
punishes women who are already in difficult situations. The Supreme 
Court has repeatedly ruled that neither a state nor the federal 
government can ban safe and legal abortion services pre-viability.
  I support a woman's legal right to opt for or against an abortion. 
The decision is private. It's a matter of faith and it's a matter of 
conscience, and our Constitution recognizes this.
  What I do not support is a bill that takes away a woman's 
Constitutional right. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a 
shameful attempt to impose a radical political agenda on women. It 
strips away their individual liberties and puts their health at serious 
risk. This bill is wrong, this bill is dangerous, and this House should 
reject it.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, the science is clear, as 
dismemberment abortion procedures pull children apart limb from limb, 
the baby feels pain. The baby recoils as the instruments get closer. 
The fight or flight instinct is there. If that isn't proof of life, I 
don't know what is. These late term abortions must end.
  My position on this matter is well-known. It has long been my mission 
to protect the unborn.
  A vast majority of Americans agree, late term abortions are wrong. 
Period. Full stop.
  This bill isn't just for the sake of the babies. This bill protects 
their mothers. At 20 weeks, this horrendous procedure is risky and 
subjects mothers to serious dangers.
  Lives are at stake, both for mothers and their babies.
  I support this bill, and urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, in both chambers to do the same. Thank you Mr. Franks for 
introducing this important piece of legislation.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, today, I rise for Dr. Liz. This is her 
story. Laura and Mark, a couple in Connecticut, sought prenatal care 
from Dr. Liz. When Laura was 20 weeks pregnant, they came in for an 
ultrasound.
  The couple was devastated when the scan showed that their baby was 
affected by anencephaly, meaning absence of brain development. Dr. Liz 
remembers watching the joy and laughter leave Laura and Mark as they 
absorbed this news.
  They sought refuge with their families and clergy, and jointly made 
the difficult decision to end the pregnancy rather than endure 20 more 
weeks, a delivery, and the certain death of the child soon thereafter.
  Every family should be able to make their own decisions about 
reproductive health. Instead, this bill puts the federal government 
squarely between a woman and her doctor. It even threatens providers 
like Dr. Liz with five years in jail if they perform a legal, 
constitutional, and sometimes medically necessary procedure.
  H.R. 36 is nothing more than a cruel attempt to deny women their 
constitutional rights. The Ninth Circuit struck down Idaho's 20-week 
ban in 2015, and also struck down a similar law from Arizona in 2013.
  We must stop the attacks on women's health. I urge my colleagues to 
vote no on H.R. 36.
  Mr. ESTES of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This bill would 
prohibit late term abortions on unborn babies who can feel pain. As we 
now know, babies can feel pain as early as 20 weeks. This means during 
dismemberment abortion and induction abortions, babies feel the pain 
from these procedures, while in the womb. We are one of seven countries 
that still allows late term abortions, putting us in the company with 
North Korea and China.
  In fact, one of my staffers great niece was born at 26 weeks, 
weighing just 2 lbs, 11 oz. It's unconscionable that we allow babies 
such as her niece to be aborted. This bill is one step closer to 
achieving our goal of protecting these innocent lives. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill and to protect the sanctity of life.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Brownley of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     36 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to 
     report the same to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 6, line 21, insert after ``life'' the following: ``or 
     health''.
       Page 6, beginning on line 22, strike ``whose'' and all that 
     follows through ``conditions'' on page 7, ending in line 3.
       Page 11, line 20, insert after ``life'' the following: ``or 
     health''.
       Page 11, beginning on line 21, strike ``by'' and all that 
     follows through ``injury'' on line 22 and insert ``or''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, this is the final 
amendment to H.R. 36, which will not kill the bill or send it back to 
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage, as amended.
  Madam Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I am a mom. I have two 
wonderful children. I am so very proud of them because both of them 
have decided to pursue careers that will save lives. My daughter, 
Hannah, currently lives in Africa, working for an NGO to fight poverty 
and AIDS. My son, Fred, is a doctor at Northwestern.
  Looking around this room, I see many other moms. We know the amazing 
joy that comes with parenthood. Most of us have been fortunate that our 
children were born without complications. Unfortunately, for some 
women, this is not always the case.
  Throughout this debate, Members have been sharing the stories of 
women who wanted to be moms, but who found themselves in unimaginable 
situations and who were forced to make one of the most gut-wrenching 
decisions of their lives--whether to terminate her pregnancy due to 
health risks.
  This is much like one woman from Michigan, who I will call Pam.
  Pam was already raising children and was excited and proud to be 
pregnant with another child. But Pam's pregnancy was causing her heart 
to fail. She consulted with multiple specialists, who all told her that 
her own health was in jeopardy if the pregnancy continued.

[[Page H7726]]

  Pam's doctors advised her that the safest option was to terminate the 
pregnancy. But it was a very difficult decision for Pam and her family 
to make, as anyone in this room can surely imagine.
  Pam, of course, had to think about her children, her family, and her 
own life. Imagine what that decision must be like. Just take a moment 
and think about that.
  Now, imagine finding out that politicians in Washington, D.C., have 
told Pam that she was not allowed to make that decision on her own, 
with her family. Imagine that: politicians putting her health in 
jeopardy, telling a woman and her family that the government was going 
to criminalize a doctor providing her care, that her children might not 
have a mother while growing up. That is what this bill would do.
  As currently written, H.R. 36 shows no concern for the long-term 
health of the mother, her future ability to bear children, or her 
ability to care for her family. This bill would force women to carry 
pregnancies to term, even when their health is at risk. Even if the 
fetus has no chance of survival, this bill would require a woman to go 
to full term. Imagine what that would be like.
  Madam Speaker, my amendment simply adds the health of the mother to 
the existing exemptions in this bill.
  Without my amendment, H.R. 36 devalues the health and well-being of 
women and puts their life at risk. It tells our mothers, our daughters, 
our nieces, and our granddaughters that decisions about their long-term 
health are not their own.
  This is not the first bill that has been brought to the floor that 
shows disregard for women and their families. This bill fits a 
disturbing pattern.
  Just this year, the House has considered legislation that tells women 
that they need to get their employer's permission if they want 
affordable birth control.
  The House has considered bills that would eliminate women's essential 
health benefits, like maternity care and mammograms.
  The House has considered legislation to cut funding for women's 
healthcare centers.
  The House has also considered legislation that would allow insurance 
companies to charge women higher premiums and label pregnancy as a 
preexisting condition.
  Tomorrow, we will consider a budget that decimates programs that are 
critical to the health and welfare of women and families so that we can 
give a massive tax cut to the wealthiest 1 percent.
  Just take one moment to think about those priorities.
  Madam Speaker, bills like this one disrespect and devalue women. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Alabama is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to share 
my strong support for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, or 
Micah's Law.
  My colleagues who oppose this bill adamantly defend a mother's 
ability to have a late-term abortion and a doctor's ability to perform 
it. But, Madam Speaker, I have heard no mention of the third person in 
the room: the unborn baby.
  I am astounded that the opposition chooses to focus solely on the two 
individuals who can speak for themselves, with no mention of the one 
who cannot. That is exactly what we are here to do today. We are here 
to speak up for those who can't speak for themselves. We are here to 
defend those who cannot defend themselves.
  Our bill seeks to do this by restricting abortions after 20 weeks, or 
at the 6th month of pregnancy, the point at which research shows the 
unborn babies can feel pain.
  Last week, I, too, had the opportunity to meet the little boy this 
bill was named for: Micah Pickering. As many of you know, he was born 
at 22 weeks and spent 4 long months in intensive care.

                              {time}  1730

  Micah survived, and this year he is in kindergarten. You see, 
children like Micah, who are born prematurely, are treated as patients. 
Special care is given to reduce their pain and increase their chances 
for survival, just as it should be.
  So, Madam Speaker, my question to those who would oppose this bill is 
this: What is the difference between a baby born at 6 months outside 
the womb and a baby at 6 months inside the womb? How can one be treated 
like a miracle they are created to be and the other be treated like 
medical waste? If a baby like Micah can survive outside the womb given 
the appropriate care, shouldn't we give other babies like him the same 
protection and chance to live?
  I have listened to my colleagues on the other side call this bill 
extreme. I say to oppose this bill is extreme. If we won't stop 
abortions at 6 months of pregnancy when a baby feels pain, when will we 
stop them?
  We have to draw a line somewhere. To say aborting a little baby who 
can actually feel the pain of the procedure being forced upon them 
crosses the line is a gross understatement.
  Madam Speaker, I am unapologetically pro-life, and I oppose abortion 
at any stage. I will always fight to grant greater protections for life 
under the law. As a society, I pray that we will start assigning 
greater value to life at all stages in this country.
  Madam Speaker, so often we get caught up in the policies of this 
issue and we forget that these are babies, for goodness' sake. They 
feel pain, and we need to protect them. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and join me in supporting 
this underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 
5-minute vote on passage of the bill, if ordered, and suspending the 
rules and passing S. 782.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 187, 
nays 238, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 548]

                               YEAS--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires

[[Page H7727]]


     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--238

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bridenstine
     Foster
     Himes
     Kihuen
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Rosen
     Titus

                              {time}  1755

  Messrs. BUCSHON, MURPHY of Pennsylvania, and DENHAM changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BISHOP of Georgia and KEATING changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 548.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 189, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 549]

                               AYES--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bridenstine
     Himes
     Kihuen
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Rosen
     Titus

                              {time}  1802

  So the bill was passed.

[[Page H7728]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________