{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2025-01-23-pt1-PgH335", "2025-01-23", 119, 1, null, null, "BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION ACT", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H335", "H345", "[{\"name\": \"Chip Roy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jamie Raskin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Kelly Morrison\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Michelle Fischbach\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Katherine M. Clark\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ann Wagner\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Timothy M. Kennedy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Christopher H. Smith\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mary Gay Scanlon\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gregory F. Murphy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jerrold Nadler\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert F. Onder, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lucy McBath\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sydney Kamlager-Dove\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Debbie Wasserman Schultz\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Teresa Leger Fernandez\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Suzanne Bonamici\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lois Frankel\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sara Jacobs\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Janelle S. Bynum\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ayanna Pressley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Laura Gillen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Maxine Dexter\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ben Cline\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lateefah Simon\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Judy Chu\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Andrew S. Clyde\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"5\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"5\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"6\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"12\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"21\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"21\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"21\"}]", "171 Cong. Rec. H335", "Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 14 (Thursday, January 23, 2025)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 14 (Thursday, January 23, 2025)]\n[House]\n[Pages H335-H345]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION ACT\n\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the\nbill (H.R. 21) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a\nhealth care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of\ncare in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted\nabortion, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.\n The Clerk read the title of the bill.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fulcher). Pursuant to House Resolution\n5, the bill is considered read.\n The text of the bill is as follows:\n\n H.R. 21\n\n Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of\n the United States of America in Congress assembled,\n\n SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.\n\n This Act may be cited as the ``Born-Alive Abortion\n Survivors Protection Act''.\n\n SEC. 2. FINDINGS; CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.\n\n (a) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:\n (1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant,\n the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws\n of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of\n such laws.\n (2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a\n hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the\n protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or\n for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other\n facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a\n patient within its care.\n (b) Constitutional Authority.--In accordance with the above\n findings, Congress enacts the following pursuant to Congress'\n power under--\n (1) section 5 of the 14th Amendment, including the power to\n enforce the prohibition on government action denying equal\n protection of the laws; and\n (2) section 8 of article I to make all laws necessary and\n proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the\n Constitution of the United States, including the power to\n regulate commerce under clause 3 of such section.\n\n SEC. 3. BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION.\n\n (a) Requirements Pertaining to Born-Alive Abortion\n Survivors.--Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is\n amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:\n\n ``Sec. 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion\n survivors\n\n ``(a) Requirements for Health Care Practitioners.--In the\n case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a\n child born alive (as defined in section 8 of title 1, United\n States Code (commonly known as the `Born-Alive Infants\n Protection Act')):\n ``(1) Degree of care required; immediate admission to a\n hospital.--Any health care practitioner present at the time\n the child is born alive shall--\n ``(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care,\n and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as\n a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care\n practitioner would render to any other child born alive at\n the same gestational age; and\n ``(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence\n required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born\n alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.\n ``(2) Mandatory reporting of violations.--A health care\n practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician's\n office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure\n to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall\n immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or\n Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.\n ``(b) Penalties.--\n ``(1) In general.--Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be\n fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5\n years, or both.\n ``(2) Intentional killing of child born alive.--Whoever\n intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act\n that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a),\n shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for\n intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.\n ``(c) Bar to Prosecution.--The mother of a child born alive\n described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted under\n this section, for conspiracy to violate this section, or for\n an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a\n violation.\n ``(d) Civil Remedies.--\n ``(1) Civil action by a woman on whom an abortion is\n performed.--If a child is born alive and there is a violation\n of subsection (a), the woman upon whom the abortion was\n performed or attempted may, in a civil action against any\n person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate\n relief.\n ``(2) Appropriate relief.--Appropriate relief in a civil\n action under this subsection includes--\n ``(A) objectively verifiable money damage for all injuries,\n psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of\n subsection (a);\n ``(B) statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of the\n abortion or attempted abortion; and\n ``(C) punitive damages.\n ``(3) Attorney's fee for plaintiff.--The court shall award\n a reasonable attorney's fee to a prevailing plaintiff in a\n civil action under this subsection.\n ``(4) Attorney's fee for defendant.--If a defendant in a\n civil action under this subsection prevails and the court\n finds that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous, the court\n shall award a reasonable attorney's fee in favor of the\n defendant against the plaintiff.\n ``(e) Definitions.--In this section the following\n definitions apply:\n ``(1) Abortion.--The term `abortion' means the use or\n prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other\n substance or device--\n ``(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman\n known to be pregnant; or\n ``(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman\n known to be pregnant, with an intention other than--\n ``(i) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve\n the life and health of the child born alive; or\n ``(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.\n\n[[Page H336]]\n\n ``(2) Attempt.--The term `attempt', with respect to an\n abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the\n actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in\n a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an\n abortion.''.\n (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter\n 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting\n after the item pertaining to section 1531 the following:\n\n``1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors.''.\n (c) Chapter Heading Amendments.--\n (1) Chapter heading in chapter.--The chapter heading for\n chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by\n striking ``Partial-Birth Abortions'' and inserting\n ``Abortions''.\n (2) Table of chapters for part i.--The item relating to\n chapter 74 in the table of chapters at the beginning of part\n I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking\n ``Partial-Birth Abortions'' and inserting ``Abortions''.\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,\nequally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority\nleader, or their respective designees.\n The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) and the gentleman from Maryland\n(Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).\n\n General Leave\n\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may\nhave 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and\ninsert extraneous material on H.R. 21.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Texas?\n There was no objection.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Speaker, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act\nprotects one of our most vulnerable populations; innocent children.\n I am proud that at the beginning of the 119th Congress, we are taking\nthis step toward protecting life and the fundamental rights of our most\nvulnerable American citizens.\n We are all too familiar with the horrors of abortion and the\nunchecked power of the abortion industry. We know it is simply common\nsense to provide lifesaving care to those babies who survive an\nabortion.\n In 2013, Jill Stanek testified before the House Committee on the\nJudiciary about the horrific realities of being a nurse and seeing\nchildren being aborted alive and left to die alone in a dirty utility\ncloset.\n I can hardly believe that those words are coming out of my mouth\nstanding here on the floor of the House of Representatives, in this,\nthe beacon of hope for people around the world.\n She said: I was traumatized and changed forever by my experience of\nholding a little abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he died, a 21-\nor 22-week-old baby who had been aborted because he had Down syndrome.\nThat is hard to believe.\n One of my guests for the inauguration, one of my dear friends from\nAustin, Texas, a somewhat well-renowned musician and songwriter,\nbrought his son who has Down syndrome and is such a blessing to this\nworld.\n That child, as well as this child that was left to die alone in a\ndirty utility closet, was and is a fellow human being, a fellow\nAmerican whose right to life should have been protected by the law.\nCongress cannot stand by and allow this type of suffering. We have both\na moral and a constitutional duty here.\n This legislation is simple: The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors\nProtection Act requires that infants born alive under an attempted\nabortion receive the same protection under the law and degree of care\nof any newborn, combined with, by the way, the penalties associated\nwith those who would ignore their duty under the law.\n Mr. Speaker, it is a commonsense measure. Unfortunately, as evidenced\nby comments from many of my Democrat colleagues, not everyone believes\nthat a child born alive should be protected.\n In 2019, then-Virginia Governor Northam stated: ``The infant would be\ndelivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be\nresuscitated if that is what the mother and the family desired, and\nthen a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,''\nsaid the Democrat Governor of Virginia.\n This blatant disregard for human life has no place in the medical\nprofession in our country.\n Last Congress, unfortunately, only one Democrat voted in favor of the\nBorn-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and another voted\n``present.''\n My Democrat colleagues send a clear message to the American people\nthat these innocent lives are not worthy of protection and those who\nintentionally let infants die after birth should not be held\naccountable.\n If a baby American, a fellow American, is lying on a table dying and\nwe cannot, as Congress, as the leaders of this country and the leaders\nof the free world, cannot say that under the language of the 14th\nAmendment of the United States Constitution, under the language of the\nDeclaration of Independence that animates our Constitution, and under\nthe privileges of immunities--the roots of which are found in English\ncommon law that create the bedrock of our entire justice system--then\nwe need to make sure that that child is protected even and especially\nbecause of its defenseless nature.\n Mr. Speaker, that is our duty. That is why I rise in support of this\nlegislation. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this\nlegislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.\n\n {time} 1400\n\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Speaker, while their leader boasts of pardoning hundreds of\nconvicted violent felons who attacked and brutalized 140 police\nofficers in this building, the party formerly of Abraham Lincoln in\nCongress today is working to create a new crime and to perfect three\ngreat GOP legislative arts visible this week: Number one, complete\nlegislative redundancy; two, interfering in other families' private\nlives to prey on their tragedies and medical catastrophes; and, three,\nthreatening to send American doctors to jail.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished\nCongresswoman from the Third District of Minnesota (Ms. Morrison) who\nis a mother of three, an OB/GYN, and a former State legislator serving\nin her first term. This is her first speech on the House floor.\n Ms. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise not only as the Congresswoman\nfrom Minnesota's Third District but as an OB/GYN who has had the honor\nand privilege of caring for patients for more than 20 years.\n As I have said many times throughout those years, being an\nobstetrician is the greatest job in the world. Being present and\nhelping people during one of the most joyful moments of their lives is\nan incredible privilege. It is also a serious responsibility.\n On most days it is the best job in the world, but sometimes it can be\nabsolutely tragic and heartbreaking. Sometimes medical complications\ncan prevent a patient's dreams of building her family from coming true.\nThe moment when a patient and her family learn about a lethal fetal\nmedical condition that is incompatible with life is devastating. The\npain and the grief in that moment is unfathomable. You can never unhear\nthe mother's cries of despair.\n Meeting each patient where they are and making a care plan that meets\ntheir needs is essential. Knowing that their baby will not survive,\nsome want to plan a delivery that enables them to meet and hold and\ncare for their baby for the precious little time they have together,\nthe time and the space to say good-bye.\n This shameful legislation would insert the government into this\ntragic situation and deny families the care they want for their baby.\nInstead of allowing parents to hold their dying baby, this bill would\nrequire doctors to forcibly take the dying baby from their parents and,\neven though there is no chance of survival, place the baby directly on\na medical table under bright lights and perform interventions that will\nnot work.\n Sometimes it is chest compressions, intubation, when a breathing tube\nis placed in the baby's trachea, and IV lines. If those measures were\nnot taken, the doctor could be charged with murder.\n This bill is cruel. It singles out patients who are facing the worst\ndays of their lives. This bill does not solve a\n\n[[Page H337]]\n\nproblem. Doctors are already both honored and obligated to provide\nappropriate care for their patients. It is illegal to kill a newborn\ninfant in all 50 States.\n This bill is designed to confuse, to frighten, and to misinform\npeople and criminalize medical providers. It would inflict further and\nunnecessary tragedy and trauma on patients and their families. We\nshould do everything we can to support pregnant women, mothers,\nfamilies, and their care providers, not attack them.\n Mr. Speaker, I stand before you as an obstetrician on behalf of\npatients and providers across the country, who should never be\nsubjected to this cruel and harmful mandate. I implore my colleagues to\nreject this legislation.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I would note another abortion survivor, Melissa\nOhden, testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2015.\n ``You wouldn't know it by looking at me today, but in August of 1977,\nI survived a failed saline infusion abortion. . . . I know where\nchildren like me were left to die at St. Luke's hospital--a utility\ncloset.''\n Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs.\nFischbach) for 2 minutes.\n Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Born-\nAlive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Democrats are trying to\ndistort this issue and this bill. They are trying to mislead the\npublic, claiming that this is an attack on abortion rights and privacy\nand all kinds of things. What it is, is nothing like the situation that\nmy colleague from Minnesota spoke about.\n We only need to look at the actual language of this bill: ``To\nprohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper\ndegree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or\nattempted abortion.'' These are the same words the clerk read when we\nbegan this debate.\n I am absolutely appalled that we have to dictate in law that a\nnewborn baby is a patient and not medical waste. The fact is Democrat\nlawmakers all over the country are pushing legislation to give abortion\nproviders an out from providing care to babies born after failed\nabortions.\n Babies born after a botched abortion are living human beings with\nblood in their veins and a beat in their hearts just like us. They\ndeserve the same standard of care that any baby at the same age would\nreceive.\n Is providing medical care too much to ask? This bill is not about\nabortion. It is about medical care for babies. I will repeat this. This\nbill is not about abortion. It is about medical care for babies.\n Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful that Representative Ann Wagner is\nleading the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I am honored\nto be a cosponsor. I urge everyone to support this bill and support\nmedical care for babies. I urge a ``yes'' vote.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nMassachusetts (Ms. Clark), the minority whip.\n Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have one goal\ntoday, and that is a march toward a national abortion ban. They want it\nso desperately that now through this bill they are treating doctors\nlike criminals, demonizing heartbroken women, and accusing mothers of\nkilling their newborn healthy infants.\n\n I will mention what happened to me. It is a story that can be told by\nso many women in this country. I learned during a routine sonogram that\nthe doctors could no longer pick up a heartbeat. I was devastated by\nthis news. My doctor said that I would need abortion care to prevent\ninfection.\n I asked for more time so I could go home and somehow hope that this\ncould all be reversed. When the time came and I needed to have this\nprocedure to protect my own health and be the mother I wanted to be for\nmy children, I asked one more time to please check that that heartbeat\nwas there before they did this procedure.\n These are horrible, painful situations that women, families, and\nexpectant parents find themselves in. When politics are introduced into\nthese moments of grief, they have real consequences for people. When\nRepublicans continue to threaten doctors with prison, what have they\nachieved? They have gutted reproductive healthcare in this country.\n OB/GYNs are fleeing States with abortion bans and leaving the field\nall together. Today, one-third of all counties in our country have no\nobstetric care. There are no doctors to help women deliver babies\nsafely. For example, under Georgia's abortion ban, currently half of\nthe counties don't have a single obstetrician.\n Mr. Speaker, if Republicans truly care about the lives of women and\nchildren, they will vote ``no'' on this bill.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nMissouri (Mrs. Wagner), the lead author of this legislation.\n Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Roy, my friend from Texas, for\nyielding to me.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 21, the\nBorn-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, legislation that I have\nbeen blessed and honored to lead since 2019.\n Today, thanks to the Herculean efforts of the pro-life movement, the\nAmerican people have finally regained the power back from the courts to\ndecide how to protect the most vulnerable among us.\n However, Congress has a clear role to play when it comes to\nprotecting newborn infants, babies who have been delivered alive and\nare experiencing their first moments in the world. All children should\nbe welcomed with joy and wonder, no matter the circumstances of their\nbirth. Yet, too many of these little ones are denied the medical care\nthat they need to survive and thrive simply because they are unwanted.\n This commonsense legislation will require healthcare providers to\nadminister the same level of care to babies who survive abortions that\nthey would to any other child born at the same gestational age. That is\nit.\n Mr. Speaker, I believe that life is a miracle and children are a\nblessing. As a proud grandmother of four with a fifth coming any day\nnow--hang in there, Julia--I have watched my own children grow into\nwonderful, loving parents. I have had the joy of experiencing the world\nthrough their eyes, the eyes of my grandchildren.\n It breaks my heart to think of the infants who were denied the\nopportunity to share their light with us and were instead deemed\nunwanted and left to die. We must remember today that children are not\nthe only victims of born-alive abortions. Mothers, fathers, families,\nand whole communities all suffer deeply from the loss of a child.\n Mr. Speaker, we must act with compassion to protect each little one\nand give women a strong support system as they navigate the miracles\nand challenges of motherhood. This bill will save real lives, and it\nwill give survivors a precious chance to build a future.\n This is a historic time with a pro-life House, a pro-life Senate, and\na pro-life administration. I am so proud that one of our first acts in\nthe House this Congress will be ensuring that every single baby born in\nthe United States receives lifesaving medical care at their most\nvulnerable moment.\n I express my gratitude to the co-leads of this bill, Representative\nCammack and Majority Leader Scalise, to the leadership of this\nCongress, and especially to the multitude of champions for life across\nthe country, for their tireless work in support of the unborn.\n Finally, I implore my Democratic colleagues to put aside politics and\nstand in support of lifesaving care for these innocent newborns as they\ndid when it passed the House in 2015, in 2018, and, yet again, in 2022.\n Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of the House to vote ``yes'' on H.R.\n21, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.\n Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished\ngentleman from the 26th District of New York (Mr. Kennedy), a father of\nthree and the still-bereaved father of Brigid Nicole.\n Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R.\n21, an assault on women's healthcare and fundamental rights. On October\n19, 2007, my wife Katie gave birth to our beautiful baby girl, Brigid\nNicole Kennedy. My wife and I had lost some pregnancies. We were so\nexcited when we got the news she was expecting. It was a girl, and we\nnamed her Brigid. She was kicking and doing all the things a\n\n[[Page H338]]\n\nparent would expect during a pregnancy.\n Six weeks before my wife gave birth, we went for an ultrasound and\nreceived the worst news imaginable. Brigid was diagnosed with hydrops\nfetalis, compressing her lungs with fluid, putting her and my wife's\nlife in danger. We were devastated. The only answer was to terminate\nthe pregnancy in order to save the life of my wife whose health was\nbecoming more and more threatened.\n It was a choice we did not want to make. It was a choice we had to\nmake. We wanted our baby more than anything. We saw doctors,\nspecialists, and neonatologists. We traveled where we were promised we\nwould receive the best care. If there was something we could do to\nbring her safely into this world, we did it.\n\n {time} 1415\n\n We embraced each other as a family and prayed.\n Then, with the guidance of our doctors, knowing that we were losing\nour child, knowing that she would be born and we would have only a very\nshort period of time with her, we chose palliative care to keep our\ndaughter comfortable and to love her during her time on Earth.\n Baby Brigid, who was already loved, would not live the beautiful life\nwe had dreamed for her.\n We had to schedule what we knew would be a devastating delivery for\nthe sake of my wife's health. We held her, baptized her, and sent her\non to the Lord. She was with us for only 4 minutes. We watched our baby\ngirl become our baby angel, and our lives were transformed forever.\n As we faced one of our darkest days as a family, the last thing we\nneeded was legislation that served to stand between the health of my\nwife, unborn child, and the future of our family.\n If this bill had been law, doctors would have been required to whisk\nBrigid away from us, inhumanely poke and prod our baby girl with tubes,\nneedles, and IVs, causing her needless pain, suffering, and torture.\n My wife and I would have been robbed of those precious minutes with\nour baby Brigid. It would have eviscerated the one moment my wife and I\ncling to as baby Brigid's parents.\n It would have only added to our pain, hurt, and helplessness--that\nis, if they would have performed the procedure at all, for fear of\nbreaking the law and going to jail or losing their license in order to\nsave my wife.\n I thank my wife, Katie, for allowing me to share our story, and I\nshare it because it is not ours alone.\n Countless women and families with dreams for their children and their\nfuture face difficult decisions and unthinkable circumstances every\nday. Our government has no business intruding on a family's deeply\npersonal medical decisions, yet the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision has\nopened the floodgate for States to rob women and families of the\nability to make healthcare choices with their doctors, including the\nvery difficult choice to access safe, legal, and oftentimes medically\nnecessary abortions.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Maloy). The time of the gentleman has\nexpired.\n Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the\ngentleman from New York.\n Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Madam Speaker, they are now using this bill,\nbuilt on a despicable lie rooted in neither medicine nor science, to\nrestrict access to abortion nationwide. It would levy criminal charges\nagainst healthcare practitioners and providers, jeopardizing their\nability to deliver proper medical care to women. It impacts people all\nover this country.\n Madam Speaker, today, I will vote ``no'' on H.R. 21, and I urge my\ncolleagues to do the same. Vote ``no'' to criminalizing healthcare and\n``no'' to imposing more hurt on families facing very difficult days.\n The morning after we said good-bye to Brigid, I woke up in the\nhospital and a rainbow appeared. It was a sign from above that our baby\ngirl, Brigid Nicole, was home in Heaven.\n Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Morrison, and Ms.\nClark for their poignant, riveting personal testimonies. I hope our\ncolleagues are listening to our colleagues over here.\n This bill is all about demonizing women, threatening doctors,\nexploiting other people's tragedies, and dividing the country.\n Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, our heart goes out to our colleagues who have\nsuffered personal tragedies. Unfortunately, none of the things that\nwere just ascribed to this bill are true. The bill does none of those\nthings.\n Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey\n(Mr. Smith), my friend and co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus.\n Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for\nyielding, and I thank Ann Wagner for her tremendous leadership and\ncourage in authoring this important bill.\n Madam Speaker, in a Florida abortion clinic, Sycloria Williams\ndelivered a perfectly healthy, live baby girl at 23 weeks.\n The clinic owner took the baby, who was gasping for air, cut her\numbilical cord, threw her into a biohazard bag, and put the bag into\nthe trash like so much garbage.\n Heartbroken, Ms. Williams later had a funeral for her baby girl she\nnamed Shanice.\n Madam Speaker, why are these live births so little known? We are\ntalking about, in most cases, perfectly healthy babies who are killed\nbut they survive.\n The Philadelphia Inquirer did a cover story years ago called ``The\nDreaded Complication.'' In it, the abortionists were complaining that\nso many children were surviving late-term abortions and they didn't\nknow what to do. The partial-birth abortion ban, where the baby's\nbrains are sucked out--we did the ban, but the actual procedure--was,\nin part, in response to that. They wanted to ensure that the baby was\ndead.\n In that article, Dr. Willard Cates, former head of the Centers for\nDisease Control and Prevention's abortion surveillance unit, said: Live\nbirths are little known because organized medicine, from fear of public\nclamor and legal action, treats them more as an embarrassment to be\nhushed up than a problem to be solved. It is like turning yourself in\nto the IRS for an audit. What is there to gain? The tendency is not to\nreport because there are only negative incentives.\n\n Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, one of the few who got\ncaught, was convicted of murder for killing so many children and women\nin his abortion clinic in Philadelphia. The grand jury described it\nthis way: Gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies: He\ndelivered them. He killed them. He didn't call it that. He called it\nensuring fetal demise. The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking\nscissors into the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord.\nHe called that snipping.\n These children are not junk. They cannot be treated as so much\ngarbage. This legislation tries to say we need to protect them once\nthey are born after the abortion.\n The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act seeks to end or at\nleast mitigate this egregious child abuse by requiring that a\nhealthcare provider must--and this is from the bill--exercise the same\ndegree of professional care, skill, and diligence to preserve the life\nand health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious\nhealthcare practitioner would render to any other child born alive.\n Why can't we have that standard to try to save that child? The bill\nempowers the women upon whom the abortions are performed to obtain\nappropriate relief through civil action. We passed a bill like this\nwhen Steve Chabot was the prime sponsor years ago, but the enforcement\nhas been almost nil if not none.\n This is humane, pro-child, pro-human rights legislation, and I hope\nmy colleagues on the other side realize these children have great value\nand should not be treated like junk.\n Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the passionate vehemence of\nthe gentleman, but the whole substance of his argument completely\nundercuts the meaning of their bill.\n In the case that I could hear him talking about, Kermit Barron\nGosnell was an American serial killer who indeed engaged in precisely\nthe conduct the gentleman is talking about and was convicted of murder\nin Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia.\n\n[[Page H339]]\n\n Infanticide is against the law in 50 States in America, and this guy\nwas picked up for the conduct the gentleman spoke of. He was prosecuted\nfor it, and he was sent to jail.\n Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?\n Mr. RASKIN. No.\n Madam Speaker, I would like my time restored.\n I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon),\nthe distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the\nConstitution and Limited Government.\n Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, we are here again because Republicans\nhave prioritized a bill designed to make headlines, not good law.\n H.R. 21 is designed to mislead the public about those who need\nabortion care and the doctors who provide that care.\n Let's be clear. As stated, the law of the land is that doctors have\nan obligation to provide appropriate medical care to their patients,\nincluding infants, and no one here is advocating for infanticide.\n This bill goes further than restating the current law, and it is our\njob here to read the fine print. This bill would create harsh criminal\nand financial penalties for doctors and clinicians providing medically\nnecessary and appropriate care to their patients.\n As Representative Kennedy's heartbreaking testimony just made clear,\nevery pregnancy is different. Patients and providers have to be able to\nmake the healthcare decisions that are right for their families without\npoliticians mandating a one-size-fits-all approach and threatening\nhealthcare providers who disagree.\n Republican extremists can continue attacking healthcare providers and\nwomen's fundamental freedoms, but we are going to keep fighting to\nensure that women can make their own healthcare decisions.\n Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman from\nNorth Carolina (Mr. Murphy).\n Mr. MURPHY. Madam Speaker, I am a healthcare provider, and I have\nbeen one for 30 years.\n I rise today in support of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors\nProtection Act to protect the lives of our country's most innocent.\nThis is not about abortion.\n As a physician, it is beyond my comprehension that anyone would not\nintervene to save an innocent and defenseless human life. I cannot in\nmy deepest soul understand how anyone would not come to the aid of a\nhelpless infant child. Neglect, in this instance, when the baby is\noutside the mother's body, is murder, plain and simple.\n There have been so many instances of individuals who are alive today\nwho were saved after an attempted abortion. They testify how their life\nwas saved because some physician abided by their oath to do no harm,\nprimum non nocere.\n The child is born alive. It is not part of the mother's body. This is\nnot about abortion. Neglect is harm. Neglect is immoral. Abortion is\nnot the issue.\n I strongly support this bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors\nProtection Act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I urge my\ncolleagues across the aisle to understand the delineation between an\nabortion and trying to save the life of someone who survives an\nabortion.\n\n Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the powerful words of my friend\nfrom North Carolina, and I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New\nYork (Mr. Nadler).\n Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose this legislation, which\nis not rooted in medical realities.\n Physicians do not abort babies after birth, period. Healthcare\nproviders have always been legally required to provide appropriate\ncare. Patients and providers must be free to make health decisions\nbased on their circumstances without political interference.\n I will tell you what this bill would do. It will cause more pain and\nsuffering for families who are already facing an extraordinarily\nheartbreaking situation. In many cases, it may be safer and healthier\nto treat a baby at the birth location rather than wasting precious time\ntraveling to a hospital. This bill would take that medical judgment\naway from doctors and give it to politicians, putting infants' lives at\ngreater risk. That is outrageous.\n This bill is not about protecting children. It is about controlling\nwomen's lives. Republicans campaigned on the promise that they would\nnot ban abortion, yet here we are in the first month of the new\nCongress and the GOP has already brought this cruel bill to the floor\nin an effort to advance a dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide,\nalthough this bill really will ban no abortions at all but rather\nthreaten the lives of some newborns. It is shameful.\n Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.\n Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman from\nMissouri (Mr. Onder).\n Mr. ONDER. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 21,\nthe Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.\n This legislation says that infants who are born alive after an\nattempted abortion are entitled to the same respect and medical care\nthat would be provided to an infant of the same gestational age.\n In some late-term abortions, the abortionist is unsuccessful at\nending the life of the baby, and the baby is born alive. Babies are\nable to move and breathe on their own. Even pro-abortion academics\nadmit this is often the case, and it is not rare.\n A June 2024 article published in the American Journal of Obstetrics &\nGynecology found that of 14,000 second-trimester abortions, over 1,500\nbabies were born alive, a rate of 11.2 percent.\n This legislation unfortunately is necessary due to heartbreaking\nreports of abortionists in the United States placing these living,\nbreathing babies in biohazard bags, vats of formaldehyde, or storing\nthem away in a utility closet to die alone. In that sense, there is a\ncomplete analogy between what goes on in these abortions, after these\nabortions, and what Kermit Gosnell did and languished in prison for.\n This commonsense legislation requires that abortion survivors be\ntreated with dignity. Remember, this bill applies to the baby's right\nto care after a baby is born alive and has no implication for abortion\nor the mother's health.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.\n Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the\ngentleman from Missouri.\n Mr. ONDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from my home State\nof Missouri for bringing forward this important bill.\n\n {time} 1430\n\n Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter calling\nthis a dangerous government intrusion into medical care which injects\npoliticians into the patient-provider relationship, signed by The\nAmerican College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American\nAcademy of Nursing, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American\nPublic Health Association, the American Society for Reproductive\nMedicine, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and a dozen other\norganizations.\n\n January 22, 2025.\n Dear Members of Congress: We, the undersigned medical and\n health professional organizations, stand in strong opposition\n to H.R. 21/S. 6. This bill represents a dangerous government\n intrusion into medical care.\n H.R. 21/S. 6 is a departure from current law. It injects\n politicians into the patient-provider relationship,\n disregarding health care professionals' training and clinical\n judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best\n course of action with their patients. Patients need and\n deserve access to compassionate and appropriate medical care.\n Every patient needs to be able to make the decision that is\n best for them and their family. H.R. 21/S. 6 would impose\n criminal and civil penalties on clinicians that could chill\n the provision of care by those who work with high-risk\n patients in complicated situations, limiting access for their\n patients.\n Abortion is safe and is a component of comprehensive\n medical care. Health care professionals who provide abortion\n care comply with existing laws and provide excellent care.\n People seeking abortion care, including those with pregnancy\n complications, deserve the highest quality medical treatment\n based on their individual health circumstances. H.R. 21/S. 6\n seeks to undermine access to abortion by stigmatizing the\n health care professionals who provide essential care.\n\n[[Page H340]]\n\n We urge lawmakers to oppose the insertion of politics into\n medicine and vote against H.R. 21/S. 6.\n Sincerely,\n American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,\n American Academy of Nursing, American Academy of Pediatrics,\n American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,\n American College of Nurse-Midwives, American College of\n Physicians, American Gynecological & Obstetrical Society,\n American Psychiatric Association, American Public Health\n Association.\n American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American\n Society of Hematology, Council of Chairs of Obstetrics and\n Gynecology, Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and\n Gynecology, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in\n Women's Health, North American Society for Pediatric and\n Adolescent Gynecology, Physicians for Reproductive Health,\n Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Society of Family\n Planning.\n\n Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished\ngentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), who is a member of the\nJudiciary Committee.\n Representative McBath herself has experienced three miscarriages and\nhad to give birth to a stillborn child.\n Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I had always wanted to start a family of\nmy own, but like many women in America, I struggled to get pregnant.\nSome days I kept praying to God wondering if He was ever going to allow\nme to have a child at all. For far too many women in this country, the\nmiracle of pregnancy often ends in tragedy.\n Our State of Georgia has one of the worst rates of maternal death in\nthis country, and Black mothers face even worse statistics. Now\nextremists want to mandate our healthcare decisions and intimidate our\ndoctors with political games that cut off access to care, care that\nonce saved my life.\n My story is not unique. Lives are at risk, and I fear for the safety\nof families in Georgia and across the country if these attempts\nsucceed.\n Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nCalifornia (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).\n Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call out the\nglaring hypocrisy of H.R. 21. Once again, the Republican Party is\ntwisting the truth instead of telling the truth. With H.R. 21,\nRepublicans claim they are saving lives of newborn babies. The last I\nchecked, infanticide is already illegal in all 50 States.\n This bill is the first step of the Republicans' radical agenda to\nmake us less safe.\n They boast about being the party of law and order. However, it seems\nthat notion only applies when punishing women and healthcare providers,\nnot the violent insurrectionists who stormed our Capitol on January 6.\nShamefully, they don't seem to care about the five police officers who\ndied as a result of January 6 or the 140 others who were injured.\n What happened to Back the Blue?\n They also don't seem to care about the women who have already died as\na result of Donald Trump's extreme abortion ban. Apparently, not all\nlives matter.\n The goal of H.R. 21 is clear: to further strip women of their\nfundamental rights by threatening doctors and healthcare providers with\njail time.\n Now Republicans want to lock up those who save lives while freeing\ncop killers?\n It is radical and not what the American people want.\n Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with their constituents,\nnot against them, and vote ``no'' on this dangerous, grossly\nhypocritical, and unnecessary bill.\n Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Madam Speaker, my colleagues like to dismiss this as if it is not a\nreal problem. Of course, those who have suffered through it, including\nthe baby whom I described who was being held as it was dying for 45\nminutes after such a grotesque procedure, beg to differ, as do the 143\nbabies whom the CDC, which is hardly a paragon of pro-life propaganda,\nwrites that between 2003 and 2014 at least 143 babies died after being\nborn alive.\n This is hardly a fiction. This is hardly something that we should\nignore.\n Certainly, these are babies who are deserving of equal protection\nunder the law. Our fellow Americans deserve protection.\n Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nFlorida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).\n Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to\nthe Republicans' reproductive healthcare surveillance act.\n This bill is the very definition of a wolf in sheep's clothing. It\nuses an intentionally scary title that simply doesn't happen. Babies\nborn alive are not killed by abortions after birth.\n Republicans pretend to support families and pregnant women, but this\nbill is clearly another attempt to control a woman's body. It is a bill\nto wedge the government between couples and their doctor when facing\nincredibly difficult decisions.\n This bill pushes lies and misinformation about pregnancy and abortion\ncare. It targets women who received heartbreaking diagnoses of serious\nhealth complications, the kind of complications that puts the life of a\nfetus or their own life at risk.\n That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists\nstrongly opposes this legislation. These are the very frontline medical\nprofessionals who provide care for women throughout their pregnancy.\n We all know women who are suffering due to the Republicans' agenda\nthat puts pregnant women in the crosshairs of their extremism.\n Sadly, these tragic stories are not hard to find in my home State of\nFlorida. Let's not create more of them.\n Mr. Speaker, we must reject these attacks and stand up for women in\nour country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Speaker, for those who were not here at the beginning, I would\nrepeat the testimony of Jill Stanek. She testified before the House\nJudiciary Committee after seeing the horrific reality.\n She was a nurse, and she saw a child being aborted who was alive and\nwas left to die alone in a utility closet. She went over and held the\nlittle survivor for 45 minutes until the baby died. Again, the baby had\nbeen aborted because the baby had Down syndrome.\n I want to remind Members that Virginia Governor Northam said: ``The\ninfant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The\ninfant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family\ndesired.''\n We are talking about a fellow living American baby. That is what we\nare talking about. We are not talking about abortion. We are talking\nabout a child.\n Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New\nMexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is the chair of the Democratic\nWomen's Caucus.\n Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, when I was pregnant, I ended up in\nan emergency room waving my ultrasound picture showing I was pregnant.\nI was so proud. After multiple miscarriages, I wanted to keep this\npregnancy, so I didn't take anesthesia.\n As I lay bleeding on that operating table, I could hear the doctors\nyelling: We are losing her. We are losing her.\n My doctors had to worry about keeping me alive that day, but they\ndidn't have to worry about going to jail for any decision I made.\n However, today Republicans would criminalize reproductive healthcare\nnationwide. Women experiencing heartbreaking, life-threatening\npregnancies will die on the operating table because doctors will be\nscared of going to jail for 5 years under this bill.\n Republicans don't seem to care about the deadly consequences.\n Do they care about women at all?\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of strong women on this side of the\naisle who beg to differ, including the lead author of the legislation.\n I would note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse\nto focus on the main point, which is ``born alive.'' We are talking\nabout, again, a fellow living human being, a fellow American who is\nalive.\n My colleagues don't want to address that because they know the\nhorrors of that will not be accepted by the American people. We are\njust simply saying\n\n[[Page H341]]\n\nthat when you have a living human being, it should be protected and be\ngiven the same equal protection as any other American.\n The fact of the matter is this is real life that we are dealing with.\n Mr. Speaker, 284 babies were reported to have been born alive between\n1997 and 2024. Florida alone reported 14 babies born alive in 2023.\nThis is a real issue.\n We are just simply saying that these precious babies, fellow\nAmericans, deserve protection because they are alive. Under the\nHippocratic oath, doctors should care for these living, fellow\nAmericans.\n Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished\ngentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is the mother of two\nwonderful grown children and a consumer advocate.\n Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this extreme\nlegislation that would criminalize doctors. As we have heard, killing a\nbaby is already against the law. What we should be doing is working\ntogether to get accurate healthcare information to anyone who is\npregnant or who wants to be pregnant.\n Here is a real story from Oregon. A county public health clinic\nclosed, and when a local woman missed her period, she went to a so-\ncalled crisis pregnancy center. She got a test and an ultrasound.\n The center said: You are pregnant. All is well. You should plan for a\nnew baby.\n A month later, she was hemorrhaging and went to the emergency\ndepartment where the doctor diagnosed a uterine polyp and early cancer.\n That blurry ultrasound she got at the crisis pregnancy center was not\na baby. It was impacted stool in her colon. She was obviously and\ndangerously misdiagnosed.\n Sadly, stories like this are not uncommon, which is why I will soon\nintroduce the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act to prohibit unfair\nand deceptive advertising of services by crisis pregnancy centers. They\noften engage in deception to get people in, and then they mislead them\nabout the services they provide and often tragically mislead them about\ntheir condition.\n Now, that is a real problem and one that makes a compelling case not\nfor this bill but for comprehensive reproductive healthcare.\n Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Speaker, I was just handed by my pro-life, female legislative\ndirector information here about pregnancy centers.\n Pregnancy resource centers nationwide serve millions of pregnant\nwomen and new mothers each year. These centers provide services and\nresources often at no charge and include ultrasounds, pregnancy\ntesting, STD testing, diapers, clothing, and educational programs.\n Private and public adoption agencies assisted approximately 115,000\nadoptions in 2022. These are organizations and entities that want to\nprotect life.\n Again, I will note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle\nwill not address and do not want to address the simple purpose of this\nbill: protecting a living American from being allowed to die without\nhaving medical treatment provided to that child.\n\n Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nFlorida (Ms. Lois Frankel), who is the chair emerita of the Democratic\nWomen's Caucus and who is also a proud mother and grandmother.\n Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This bill\nis not about protecting anyone. It is about intimidating doctors and\nmaking it harder for women to get the care they need.\n Let's be clear: Every baby born in this country is already protected\nunder the law. The bill creates unnecessary rules that aren't based on\nmedical facts or science. It threatens healthcare providers with jail\nfor doing their job.\n Instead of focusing on real issues like making healthcare more\naffordable or addressing the maternal healthcare crisis, Republicans\nare doubling down on their dangerous agenda of banning abortion\nnationwide.\n Women deserve the freedom to make their own medical decisions without\npoliticians getting in the way. That is why I strongly oppose this very\ndeadly bill.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Speaker, we ask the mothers and fathers of America: Who do you\nwant in the doctor's office with you making this decision, a medical\ndecision, OB-GYNs and doctors who vehemently oppose this legislation,\nor the MAGA politicians who are applauding this week the release of\nhundreds of violent cop assaulting convicted felons.\n The vast majority of American people reject this legislation and say:\nLet us trust the medical practitioners.\n Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk about jail and we are going to\ntalk about who might be pardoned, then I am proud that President Trump\nseems to be on the verge of pardoning a large number of American\ncitizens who have been put in jail at the hands of a weaponized\nDepartment of Justice against American citizens simply carrying out\ntheir First Amendment rights to speak out in defense of life.\n For example, Lauren Handy, 31 years old--by the way, an active,\nprogressive activist for human rights--was put in jail for 57 months.\n I am glad that it seems that President Trump is on the verge of\npardoning Lauren Handy. Even though I disagree with her on a whole lot\nof issues, I was proud to sit with her and meet with her when she was\nbeing targeted for prosecution by the weaponized Department of Justice\nunder Joe Biden to be put in jail because she is pro-life.\n I think great things are going to happen.\n Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n\n {time} 1445\n\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nCalifornia (Ms. Jacobs).\n Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, it is sadly unsurprising to me that Members\nof this body know next to nothing about pregnancy or abortion care,\nwhich is why we should not be the ones getting involved in these\ndecisions in the first place.\n Let's clear a few things up for my colleagues. First of all, killing\na baby is already illegal in all 50 States and the District of\nColumbia. It is called murder, and we already have criminal penalties\nfor it. Second of all, no one--and I mean no one--goes through 8 or 9\nmonths of pregnancy and all that comes with it, such as morning\nsickness, heartburn, swollen ankles, and all of the other uncomfortable\nand painful parts of pregnancy, and then, after 8 or 9 months of that,\nit is just like, no, I don't want to do this.\n Only 1 percent of all abortions happen at 21 weeks or later. If they\ndo, it is because of a serious fetal abnormality or the health of the\nmother.\n If you are the one getting that news, it is heartbreaking. It is\nearth-shattering. The last thing families need is government to\ninterfere with their access to care.\n This bill isn't based on science or reality. It is a horrible,\ndisgusting bill.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yakym). The time of the gentlewoman has\nagain expired.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Texas keeps\nreferencing his female staff and colleagues, but it seems like there\nhas been a coed exodus from his side of the aisle as support for this\nbill vanishes. In the meantime, I don't have enough time, and I am\nhappy to be yielded time to share with my colleagues.\n Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 8\\1/2\\ minutes\nremaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 9\\1/2\\ minutes remaining.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I simply say I am proud to have my colleague\nhere from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), who is coed the last time I\nchecked.\n The fact of the matter, as my friend from Maryland and the last\nspeaker is\n\n[[Page H342]]\n\ntrying to allude to here, when we are talking about it is already\nagainst the law and it is murder on the books, here is the problem:\nDown here in the District of Columbia, we have the D.C. five, which\nwere very clearly full-term abortions. We have the bodies of five\nbabies discovered in Washington outside of a Washington clinic.\n As subcommittee chairman, I sent a letter to Washington, D.C.,\nauthorities to preserve the records. Biden's Department of Justice\nrefused to look into this information, but the D.C. five reveals the\nuncomfortable truth about abortion and a reality that we are all\ndealing with here.\n Again, I go back to the point. Talking about murder, we are also\ntalking about babies being allowed to die and babies being allowed to\nsit there and literally gasp out their last breath rather than have\ndoctors resuscitate those infants.\n That is the truth that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle\njust simply do not want to recognize.\n Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nOregon (Ms. Bynum), the distinguished Representative and mother of two.\n Ms. BYNUM. Mr. Speaker, this extremist bill undermines women's access\nto healthcare. That is unacceptable, and it is, frankly, not what I was\nsent here to work on. I will be voting ``no.''\n The evidence is clear. In States with less access to care, maternal\nmortality is higher, infant deaths are higher, and racial inequities\nare greater. These restrictions also make it harder for expectant\nmothers to receive the care they need in pregnancies with\ncomplications.\n It is nonsense that my daughters have less rights than I did at their\nage. It is nonsense that we have had to decide with them where to live\nand where to go to school based on where they have rights. It is\nnonsense that my daughters are less safe because of government\ninterference in their healthcare.\n It is time that House Republicans put aside this foolishness and\nstart focusing on real issues, like eliminating maternal mortality and\nincreasing rural access to healthcare, like lowering costs and creating\ngood jobs, like working across the aisle to deliver real results for\nreal people.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nMinnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my good friend.\n Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I have to bring this back to what we are\ntalking about because I have heard so many passionate words from the\nother side, and the words have nothing to do with the bill that we have\nin front of us.\n Like I mentioned before, this bill is about medical care for babies.\nIt says it in the title. The clerk mentioned it. I have mentioned it.\nIt is about medical care for babies.\n What we are trying to do here today is make sure that babies are\ntreated with dignity and medical care that they will need so that\nbabies aren't left to die in a closet alone and discarded like medical\nwaste. We recognize the humanity of these babies. We ask for them to\nhave medical care. That is what this is about.\n Don't let the other side gaslight and pretend this is about abortion\nrights. This is about babies and medical care. I will continue to\nrepeat that.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nMassachusetts (Ms. Pressley), the co-chair of the Reproductive Freedom\nCaucus.\n Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is another day under a Republican\nmajority and of an antiscience, antifacts healthcare agenda. I don't\nknow which is worse: the cruelty or the ignorance on full display here\nacross the aisle.\n\n I would ask my colleagues if they have ever met or spoken to a woman\nwho had abortion care late in pregnancy? If they had, what they would\nhave heard her share is about the nursery that she lovingly decorated.\nIf they had, what they would have heard her share was about the name\nthat she picked out. If they had, then they would have heard her share\nabout how her world collapsed all around her when learning of her\nbaby's devastating medical diagnosis.\n Let me be clear what my colleagues are doing here. The majority is\nnot only putting women's lives at risk, but they want to deny them the\nchance to hold their baby who will not survive. I don't know what God\nmy colleagues on the other side of the aisle serve. The God I serve is\none of love and mercy and would not deny a mother final moments with a\ndying child or subject her to carrying a lifeless fetus around.\n Republicans want to force their way into the exam room during one of\nthe most impossible, dangerous moments in someone's life. When a family\nlearns their baby has a fatal diagnosis and would be born with only a\nshort time to live, some people make the decision to end the pregnancy\nso they can hold their baby during their final moments.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the\ngentlewoman from Massachusetts.\n Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, how cruel it is that Republicans in\nCongress would deny them that small comfort? In these dire situations,\nfamilies forego treatment which has no hope of saving their baby's life\nand instead spend time comforting them and saying good-bye. Physicians\nwho care for families have shared how their patients spend this very\nlimited devastating time with their infants.\n Once again, we have ignorant, uninformed men who think they know\nbetter than doctors and mothers taking to the House floor to deny us\nour medical care.\n It is another day under a Republican majority. Enough.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Speaker, Gianna Jessen, another adult survivor of abortion,\ntestified to the House Judiciary Committee in 2015, stating:\n `` . . . I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles\non April the 6th, 1977. . . . Thankfully the abortionist was not at\nwork yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with\nstrangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die.''\n I will have plenty to answer for when I meet my maker and talk to the\ngood Lord, for my life as a flawed and sinful human being, but I will\nnot have to answer for not standing up in every which way that I\npossibly can to stop those kinds of horrors and to stand up for a\nfellow living American, a fellow living human being allowed to die, for\nthe political whims of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.\n Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New\nYork (Ms. Gillen), the distinguished Representative and mother of four.\n Ms. GILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.\nSince the disastrous Dobbs decision, we have seen nothing short of an\nall-out assault on women's reproductive rights and freedoms.\n Make no mistake: This bill has nothing to do with its fallacious\ntitle. Infanticide is already a crime. Instead, this bill is aimed at\ndeterring physicians from providing reproductive healthcare that many\ntimes is lifesaving. I know this firsthand because when I was supposed\nto be thrilled by a 20-week sonogram, I got the devastating news that\nmy daughter had no heartbeat. I needed to have an emergency abortion\nprocedure to ensure that I could live to raise my two children already\nat home.\n It is unthinkable that this law and laws like it are trying to strip\nmy daughters of the same access to this healthcare. Americans want\nCongress to lower costs, secure our border, and create jobs; not\ninterfere with heartbreaking family medical decisions. America's women\ndeserve better. Our daughters deserve better.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent\nwords. When will Republicans stop feeding on other people's tragedies?\nWe don't need MAGA in the delivery room.\n Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nOregon (Ms. Dexter), the mother of two and a critical care physician.\n Ms. DEXTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in vehement opposition to this\n\n[[Page H343]]\n\nbill, which amounts to legalizing physician intimidation and healthcare\nobstruction.\n Killing infants after birth is murder. It is illegal everywhere in\nthis country. This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to make healthcare\nproviders fear that they will be criminally prosecuted or sued for\ngiving lifesaving, legal healthcare.\n Under this bill, infants born with a heartbeat but without any chance\nof survival must be subjected to immediate traumatizing life support\nrather than being allowed to die peacefully in their mothers' arms.\nThis bill does nothing to save babies or protect mothers. Instead, it\nis a disgusting fear tactic, and it will absolutely exacerbate the\nalready dire shortage of women's healthcare across this Nation.\n Make no mistake: Women across this country will be harmed with this\nbill. No doctor should have to choose between administering the\ntreatment their patient needs and going to jail, and no politician\nshould be making decisions about any patient's healthcare.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Speaker, I would just note that, in the very text of the\nlegislation, Congress finds: ``One, if an abortion results in the live\nbirth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under\nthe laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of\nsuch laws; two, any infant born alive after an abortion or within a\nhospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the\nprotection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any\nperson who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening\nand treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.''\n\n That is hardly anything to do with what my colleagues on the other\nside of the aisle are talking about. We just heard one of my colleagues\non the other side of the aisle describe very specifically, yes, what we\nare trying to say we shouldn't do, which is, after a procedure, an\nabortion or otherwise, if you have a living human being, that, yes, you\nshould try to resuscitate and save that child.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.\nCline).\n Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.\n Mr. Speaker, I know that this has been discussed already, but this\nhas been talked about quite a bit in Virginia, and that is because our\nformer Governor, Ralph Northam, was the one who really laid bare the\nhorrible attitude on the left that, if a child is born with some\nabnormalities, that after that child is born, that child may not\nnecessarily be given life-sustaining treatment. Instead, according to\nour former Governor, a conversation between the mother and the\nphysician would ensue about whether or not to attempt to save this\nchild's life after it had been born.\n Mr. Speaker, this is a tragic story of just how far the left has\ngone, the attitudes toward children born alive, and we must do all we\ncan to stop this treatment of human beings.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nCalifornia (Ms. Simon), the mother of two, who, like so many women, was\nforced to make a choice when her child died in utero.\n Ms. SIMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me\ntime.\n Mr. Speaker, I oppose this misleading bill that deeply will\ncriminalize doctors who provide the most basic and emergency healthcare\nto women.\n His name was Selah Weston. At 21 weeks, his faint heartbeat clapped\nright next to my daughter's. He was a twin. I was given the opportunity\nto go home, and perhaps Selah would expel himself from my body, but all\nthree of us became septic.\n I had to go back to the emergency room, and my OB/GYN sat with me and\nmy then-husband, who is now, too, in Heaven, and gave us the\nopportunity to say either we go through this procedure, or you die,\nLelah dies, and Selah dies.\n I want Congress not to be in those conversations with OB/GYNs who\nhave to mourn with women who are facing death.\n Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill. If we want to talk about\nchildren, let's talk about childcare. Let's talk about housing. Let's\ntalk about healthcare. We can come together and create beloved\ncommunities for our children and parents. This ain't it.\n\n {time} 1500\n\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nCalifornia (Ms. Chu).\n Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 21 would rob families of the ability to\nmake difficult, complicated medical decisions in some of the most\nheartbreaking circumstances imaginable. It is a mean-spirited solution\nin search of a problem.\n Infanticide is already illegal in every State of the Union, and\nCongress unanimously affirmed this with a law in 2002, but this bill is\nnot about saving lives. It is about spreading misinformation about\nabortion care to further anti-abortion talking points.\n If the majority is interested in caring for newborns, I invite them\nto support Democrats' efforts to provide paid family leave to every new\nparent.\n Republicans are welcome to join our efforts to expand the child tax\ncredit to families struggling with paying the bills, and we would be\nthrilled to have bipartisan support in this Chamber to make childcare\naffordable everywhere.\n Instead, House Republicans have brought up a bill designed to\nintimidate doctors and perpetuate disinformation about how abortion\ncare really works.\n For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to\nrecommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I\nwould have offered my bill, the Women's Health Protection Act,\nlegislation that would create a Federal right to abortion care, free\nfrom medically unnecessary restrictions in all 50 States, in all ZIP\nCodes.\n Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my\namendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion\nto recommit.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentlewoman from California?\n There was no objection.\n Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for\nthis motion to recommit.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia\n(Mr. Clyde), my good friend.\n Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for\nyielding.\n Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine, hard to believe that we are\nactually here debating a born-alive act, that we actually have to do\nthis. The question is about life. When does life begin and is\ngovernment responsible for protecting life.\n I say life begins at conception and government is responsible for\nprotecting life. If we go back to the document that is before our\nConstitution, the Declaration of Independence, what does it actually\nsay?\n It says: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are\ncreated equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain\nunalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit\nof happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted\namong Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the\ngoverned.''\n What is one of the first unalienable rights? It is life.\n I guess the question is: When does life begin? Life begins at\nconception, and that is why I stand here in support of this bill.\n Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.\n Mr. Speaker, now we have had the opportunity to be lectured about\nlife by a gun dealer. That is pretty impressive. I think he gave the\ngame away when he finished his remarks by saying ``life begins at\nconception,'' a proposition that is rejected by the overwhelming\nmajority of the American people who think that women have a right to\nchoose, but that is a topic for another day. After spending all their\ntime saying it wasn't about abortion, I am afraid he gave the game away\nat the end.\n This bill is an exercise in complete legislative redundancy. It is an\ninterference in other people's private and medical lives to prey on\ntheir personal tragedies and catastrophes as we have heard throughout\nthe debate. It is a shocking threat to send OB/GYN doctors and\nphysicians to jail at a time\n\n[[Page H344]]\n\nwhen we have a chronic shortage of OB/GYN doctors and physicians as\nwell as nurses across the country.\n Their bill proposes to move in exactly the wrong direction, which is\nperhaps why they had a shortage of speakers on their side and we had a\nshortage of time because I could have had dozens more people who wanted\nto speak on behalf of the American majority against this absurd attempt\nto interfere in the medical lives of the American people.\n Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.\n Mr. Speaker, I started this about an hour ago, and I was moved to\ntalk, as I said, about a woman who testified in front of the House\nJudiciary Committee.\n She described having been a nurse, having witnessed what occurred\nwhere, in her testimony, the child was born after the abortion\nprocedure. The child survived for 45 minutes having been discarded into\na utility closet. This nurse held this 22-week-old child, a child of\nGod, who had been aborted because the child had Down syndrome.\n This legislation is very simple. If a fellow American, a fellow human\nbeing, who is afforded equal protection under the law, is alive in a\nhospital, in a clinic, frankly anywhere, where a doctor is there and\npresent and can perform lifesaving treatment, it is our position that\nthat child is deserving of the same equal protection under the law,\nunder the Constitution of the United States, as any other living\nAmerican, any of us in the Chamber, any of the Americans watching this\nnow.\n This child should not be left to die, should not be left in a utility\ncloset without getting the care that a doctor, who is present, having\ntaken the Hippocratic Oath, and could administer that care to save that\nchild--that is what this bill is about, nothing more.\n My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. It is why for\nthe last hour they have literally refused to address those facts. They\nhave literally refused to defend this grotesque procedure. In the\ngreatest country in the history of mankind, we allow the most\nvulnerable of our citizens to be denied equal protection under the law\nand denied the care that they deserve.\n\n Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I yield back the\nbalance of my time.\n Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this year's March for Life is\nan engraved invitation to each and every one of us to seriously\nrecommit and rededicate ourselves to the defense of the weakest and\nmost vulnerable.\n To recommit with love and compassion to tangibly assist women--\nespecially through the extraordinary work of pregnancy care centers--in\norder to protect their precious babies and their own lives from the\nviolence and cruelty of abortion.\n Pregnancy care centers are under siege by Planned Parenthood--also\nknown as Child Abuse Inc.--an organization that has killed more than 10\nmillion babies in its clinics.\n This year we recommit to exposing abortion methods to a society that\nhas chosen to be blind to the realities of brutally dismembering\nhelpless babies with sharp knife-like curettes or poisoning babies with\npills that literally starve them to death and often result in their\nbodies being flushed down a toilet.\n We are a people of indomitable hope--we absolutely refuse to\nentertain discouragement or defeat.\n We thank President Trump for defeating not one but two extremist pro-\nabortion candidates--Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris--and for his\namazing defense of unborn children.\n Abortion-President Joe Biden is gone--but his morbid legacy of\npacking the judiciary with litmus tested abortion activists, using\nexecutive orders to kill more babies and integrating the nefarious\nabortion agenda into countless benign and necessary programs like\nveterans' health and global health must be immediately reversed.\n President Trump has done more to protect the innocent than any other\npresident in history--and now, thank God, he's back.\n Since the reversal of Roe v. Wade--achieved by the three Supreme\nCourt justices President Trump appointed--half the states have enacted\nlaws to protect unborn children, saving over 200,000 children over two\nyears.\n On Monday, President Trump issued a powerful executive order designed\nto defund the outrageously pro-abortion World Health Organization\n(WHO), and another--the expected reinstatement of the Protecting Life\nin Global Health Assistance to reverse Biden's hijacking of global\nhealth funding, which shamelessly promoted abortion on demand around\nthe world including in President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief\n(PEPFAR).\n Last week, the most recent revelation was that PEPFAR broke U.S. law\nto pay for abortions in Africa--a tip of the iceberg of the Biden-\nHarris anti-child activism at home and abroad. The 2025 Marist poll has\nfound that 73 percent of Americans oppose using tax dollars for\nabortions in other countries.\n Other pro-life executive orders are expected soon.\n Special thanks to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority\nLeader John Thune and the Republican leadership in the House and Senate\nfor their ongoing courageous legislative initiatives, including\nlegislation to save babies born alive during the grisly abortion\nprocess.\n The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act under consideration\nin both the House and Senate seeks to end or at least mitigate this\negregious child abuse by requiring that a health care provider must\n``exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence\nto preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent\nand conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other\nchild born alive at the same gestational age'' or be fined and/or face\nup to five years in prison.\n The bill makes clear that no mother of a child born alive can ever be\nprosecuted.\n It also empowers the woman upon whom the abortion is performed to\nobtain appropriate relief in a civil action.\n This is humane, pro-child, human rights legislation.\n Why is there opposition? Dr. Willard Cates, MD, former head of the\nCenters for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Abortion\nSurveillance Unit, explained years ago: ``(Live births) are little\nknown because organized medicine, from fear of public clamor and legal\naction, treats them more as an embarrassment to be hushed up than a\nproblem to be solved. It's like turning yourself in to the IRS for an\naudit . . . What is there to gain? The tendency is not to report\nbecause there are only negative incentives.'' Cates was quoted by the\nPhiladelphia Inquirer in ``Abortion: The Dreaded Complication.''\n Bottom line: pro-lifers are a people of persevering faith in God\nwilling to bear any burden and endure any attack. We know that the\ncruel injustice of abortion need not be forever and that each day,\ndespite setbacks, many unborn children and their mothers have been and\nare being protected. We have hope. We have just begun.\n\n =========================== NOTE ===========================\n\n On January 23, 2025, on Page H344, in the first column, the\nfollowing appeared: Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this\nlegislation, and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER\npro tempore. All time\n\n The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. Speaker, I\nurge support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of\nmy time. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this year's March\nfor Life is an engraved invitation . . . and are being protected.\nWe have hope. We have just begun. The SPEAKER pro tempore. All\ntime\n\n ========================= END NOTE =========================\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.\n Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the previous question is ordered on\nthe bill.\n The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.\n The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was\nread the third time.\n\n Motion to Recommit\n\n Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to\nrecommit.\n The Clerk read as follows:\n\n Ms. Chu of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 21 to\n the Committee on the Judiciary.\n\n The material previously referred to by Ms. Chu is as follows:\n\n =========================== NOTE ===========================\n\n On January 23, 2025, page H344, in the second and third columns,\nthe following appeared: The Clerk read as follows: Ms. Chu of\nCalifornia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 21 to the Committee on\nthe Judiciary. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this year's\nMarch for Life is an engraved invitation . . . and are being\nprotected. We have hope. We have just begun. The material\npreviously referred to by Ms. CHU is as follows:\n\n The online version has been corrected to read: The Clerk read as\nfollows: Ms. Chu of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 21\nto the Committee on the Judiciary. The material previously\nreferred to by Ms. CHU is as follows:\n\n ========================= END NOTE =========================\n\n Ms. CHU of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 21 to\n the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report\n the same back to the House forthwith, with the following\n amendment:\n Strike all that follows after the enacting clause and\n insert the following:\n\n SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.\n\n This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Health Protection\n Act of 2025''.\n\n SEC. 2. FINDINGS.\n\n Congress finds the following:\n (1) Abortion services are essential health care, and access\n to those services is central to people's ability to\n participate equally in the economic and social life of the\n United States. Abortion access allows people who are pregnant\n to make their own decisions about their pregnancies, their\n families, and their lives.\n (2) Reproductive justice requires every individual to have\n the right to make their own decisions about having children\n regardless of their circumstances and without interference\n and discrimination. Reproductive justice is a human right\n that can and will be achieved when all people, regardless of\n actual or perceived race, color, national origin, immigration\n status, sex (including gender identity, sex stereotyping, or\n sexual orientation), age, or disability status have the\n economic, social, and political power and resources to define\n and make decisions about their bodies, health, sexuality,\n families, and communities in all areas of their lives, with\n dignity and self-determination.\n (3) Abortion care, like all health care, is a human right\n that should not depend on one's ZIP Code or region, age,\n actual or perceived race, national origin, immigration\n status, sex, or disability status. Unfortunately, this\n\n[[Page H345]]\n\n is the current reality for millions, creating a patchwork of\n abortion access across the United States. Protecting the\n right to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy,\n and the right of health care providers to provide abortion\n care, is necessary and essential to achieving this human\n right, and ultimately reproductive justice.\n (4) On June 24, 2022, in its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson\n Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court overruled Roe\n v. Wade, reversing decades of precedent recognizing a\n constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal\n viability.\n (5) The effects of the Dobbs decision were immediate and\n disastrous. In the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, many\n States imposed near-total bans on abortion. As of March 2023,\n abortion is unavailable in 14 States, leaving 17.8 million\n women of reproductive age (15-49) and transgender and gender\n nonconforming individuals with the capacity to become\n pregnant without abortion access in their home State. Within\n 100 days of the ruling, 66 clinics across 15 States were\n forced to stop offering abortions.\n (6) Travel time to an abortion clinic, already a burden for\n abortion seekers under Roe, has more than tripled since\n Dobbs. As distance to an abortion facility increases, so do\n the accompanying (and potentially prohibitive) burdens of\n time off work or school, lost wages, transportation costs,\n lodging, child care costs, and other ancillary costs.\n (7) Even before the Dobbs decision, access to abortion\n services had long been obstructed across the United States in\n various ways, including: prohibitions of, and restrictions\n on, insurance coverage; mandatory parental involvement laws;\n restrictions that shame and stigmatize people seeking\n abortion services; and medically unnecessary regulations that\n fail to further the safety of abortion services, but instead\n cause harm people by delaying, complicating access to, and\n reducing the availability of, abortion services.\n (8) Being denied an abortion can have serious consequences\n for people's physical, mental, and economic health and well-\n being, and that of their families. According to the Turnaway\n Study, a longitudinal study published by Advancing New\n Standards In Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) in 2019,\n individuals who are denied a wanted abortion are more likely\n to experience economic insecurity than individuals who\n receive a wanted abortion. After following participants for\n five years, the study found that people who were denied\n abortion care were more likely to live in poverty, experience\n debt, and have lower credit scores for several years after\n the denial. These findings demonstrate that when people have\n control over when to have children and how many children to\n have, their children benefit through increased economic\n security and better maternal bonding.\n (9) Abortion bans and restrictions have repercussions for a\n broad range of health care beyond pregnancy termination,\n including exacerbating the existing maternal health crisis\n facing the United States. The United States has the highest\n maternal mortality rate of any industrialized nations, and\n Black women and birthing people face three times the risk of\n dying from pregnancy related causes as their white\n counterparts. Even prior to Dobbs, research found that States\n that enacted abortion restrictions based on gestation\n increased their maternal mortality rate by 38 percent.\n Research has found that a nationwide ban would increase the\n United States maternal mortality rate by an additional 24\n percent. Furthermore, States that have banned, are planning\n to ban, or have severely restricted abortion care have fewer\n maternal health providers, more maternity care deserts,\n higher rates of both maternal and infant mortality, and\n greater racial inequity in health care.\n (10) Abortion bans and restrictions additionally harm\n people's health by reducing access to other essential health\n care services offered by many of the providers targeted by\n the restrictions, including--\n (A) screenings and preventive services, including\n contraceptive services;\n (B) testing and treatment for sexually transmitted\n infections;\n (C) LGBTQ health services; and\n (D) referrals for primary care, intimate partner violence\n prevention, prenatal care, and adoption services.\n (11) This ripple effect has only worsened since the Dobbs\n decision. Clinicians and pharmacists have denied access to\n essential medication for conditions including gastric ulcers\n and autoimmune diseases because those drugs are also used for\n medication abortion care. Patients are reporting being denied\n or delayed in their receipt of necessary and potentially\n lifesaving treatment for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriage\n management because of the newfound legal risks facing\n providers.\n (12) Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on\n reproductive health, including abortion, that perpetuate\n systems of oppression, lack of bodily autonomy, white\n supremacy, and anti-Black racism. This violent legacy has\n manifested in policies including enslavement, rape, and\n experimentation on Black women; forced sterilizations,\n medical experimentation on low-income women's reproductive\n systems; and the forcible removal of Indigenous children.\n Access to equitable reproductive health care, including\n abortion services, has always been deficient in the United\n States for Black, Indigenous, Latina/x, Asian American and\n Pacific Islander, and People of Color (BIPOC) and their\n families.\n (13) The legacy of restrictions on reproductive health,\n rights, and justice is not a dated vestige of a dark history.\n Data show the harms of abortion-specific restrictions fall\n especially heavily on people with low incomes, people of\n color, immigrants, young people, people with disabilities,\n and those living in rural and other medically underserved\n areas. Abortion bans and restrictions are compounded further\n by the ongoing criminalization of people who are pregnant,\n including those who are incarcerated, living with HIV, or\n with substance-use disorders. These populations already\n experience health disparities due to social, political, and\n environmental inequities, and restrictions on abortion\n services exacerbate these harms. Removing bans and\n restrictions on abortion services would constitute one\n important step on the path toward realizing reproductive\n justice by ensuring that the full range of reproductive\n health care is accessible to all who need it.\n (14) Abortion bans and restrictions are tools of gender\n oppression, as they target health care services that are used\n primarily by women. These paternalistic bans and restrictions\n rely on and reinforce harmful stereotypes about gender roles\n and women's decisionmaking, undermining their ability to\n control their own lives and well-being. These restrictions\n harm the basic autonomy, dignity, and equality of women.\n (15) The terms ``woman'' and ``women'' are used in this\n bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people\n targeted and most directly affected by bans and restrictions\n on abortion services, which are rooted in misogyny. However,\n access to abortion services is critical to the health of\n every person capable of becoming pregnant. This Act is\n intended to protect all people with the capacity for\n pregnancy--cisgender women, transgender men, nonbinary\n individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and\n others--who are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion\n services.\n (16) Pregnant individuals will continue to experience a\n range of pregnancy outcomes, including abortion, miscarriage,\n stillbirths, and infant losses regardless of how the State\n attempts to exert power over their reproductive\n decisionmaking, and will continue to need support for their\n health and well-being through their reproductive lifespans.\n (17) Evidence from the United States and around the globe\n bears out that criminalizing abortion invariably leads to\n arrests, investigations, and imprisonment of people who end\n their pregnancies or experience pregnancy loss, leading to\n violations of fundamental rights to liberty, dignity, bodily\n autonomy, equality, due process, privacy, health, and freedom\n from cruel and inhumane treatment.\n (18) All major experts in public health and medicine such\n as the American Medical Association, American Public Health\n Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Society\n of Addiction Medicine, and the American College of\n Obstetricians and Gynecologists, oppose the criminalization\n of pregnancy outcomes because the threat of being subject to\n investigation or punishment through the criminal legal system\n when seeking health care threatens pregnant people's lives\n and undermines public health by deterring people from seeking\n care for obstetrical emergencies.\n (19) Antiabortion stigma that is compounded by abortion\n bans and restrictions also contributes to violence and\n harassment that put both people seeking and people providing\n abortion care at risk. From 1977 to 2021, there were 11\n murders, 42 bombings, 196 acts of arson, 491 assaults, and\n thousands of other incidents of criminal activity directed at\n abortion seekers, providers, volunteers, and clinic staff.\n This violence existed under Roe and has been steadily\n escalating for years. The presence of dangerous protestors\n and organized extremists acts as yet another barrier to\n abortion care, and this threat has become even more urgent as\n abortion bans proliferate and stigma around abortion care\n increases.\n For full text of the bill, please see text of H.R. 12 in\n the 118th Congress.\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the\nprevious question is ordered on the motion to recommit.\n The question is on the motion to recommit.\n The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that\nthe noes appeared to have it.\n Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.\n The yeas and nays were ordered.\n The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further\nproceedings on this question are postponed.\n\n ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2025-01-23-pt1-PgH335"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 13.505436014384031, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}