Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 26, the so-called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
Despite what its supporters would have us believe, this legislation would do nothing to enhance protections or the quality of healthcare if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. What it would do, however, is directly interfere with a doctor's medical judgment and dictate a medical standard of care that may not be appropriate in all circumstances, which could, in fact, put infants' lives at greater risk.
Finally, by beginning this new Congress with a bill to restrict women's healthcare nationwide, House Republicans have made clear that they will not stop until they reach their ultimate goal, a nationwide ban on abortion.
It has always been the law that healthcare providers cannot deliberately harm newborn infants and that they must exercise reasonable care in their treatment of such infants. The bill's implication that providers who perform abortions routinely act in a callous or a criminal manner that would result in an infant's death, or that a provider who performs an abortion somehow cannot be trusted to take adequate measures to save a living baby's life, is insulting and untrue.
In opposing this bill, I do not oppose, in any way, proper medical treatment for newborn infants, whatever the circumstances of their birth, but determining the proper treatment is for medical professionals to decide, not politicians in Congress.
When I supported the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002, my reasoning, and the reasoning of my pro-choice colleagues, was simple: Killing an infant who is born alive, either by an act of omission or commission, is infanticide. It was, is, and always should be against the law, and we saw no harm in reaffirming that fact.
That law passed Congress with bipartisan support precisely because it was harmless, even if it was also useless since it did not change the preexisting law in any way because, after all, murder is murder in every State.
The bill specifically just reiterated existing law in florid language and did nothing to interfere with doctors' medical judgment or to cause needless harm.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today puts children's lives and health at risk. It requires doctors to immediately ensure transportation and admission of the infant to a hospital in all cases, with no regard as to whether doing so is actually in the best interest of the child's health and well-being.
This mandate effectively overrides the careful case-by-case exercise of professional medical judgment by healthcare providers and replaces it with a blanket rule enforceable with criminal penalties. It may be, after all, in a given case, that it is more beneficial to the infant's health to be treated on the spot and not rushed to a hospital immediately.
Such a ham-fisted approach fails to consider the fact that, in many cases, it may be safer and more conducive to the infant's health to care for the infant where it was born rather than transporting it many miles away to a hospital.
This bill assumes that Congress knows better, and it imposes a new obligation on providers that, rather than saving lives, puts infants at risk.
Perhaps, if this bill had gone through regular order, we could have avoided this unfortunate situation. There has never been a committee markup or a hearing on this bill, not in this Congress or in any previous Congress.
I would have welcomed the opportunity to hear from expert witnesses on best practices and standards of care for infants. Members could have offered amendments and perfected the bill to ensure that it achieves our common goal of providing the best, most medically appropriate care to infants and their mothers.
I am disappointed, but not surprised, that my colleagues rushed this bill to the floor when there is no evidence at all that doctors currently are failing to provide an appropriate level of care and when a chorus of provider groups oppose this bill.
Sadly, rather than protecting infants, my Republican colleagues are putting them at greater risk in the service of politics. Indeed, by bringing this bill straight to the floor as one of the first measures to be considered by the 118th Congress, Republicans and the most extreme elements of the anti-abortion movement have signaled their determination to enact a nationwide ban on abortion.
I cannot support H.R. 26 because it mandates a particular course of treatment, the immediate transport to a hospital, which may not be appropriate and may be medically dangerous in certain cases. In doing so, it abandons the practice of considering the best medical interest of infants and their mothers.
Republicans have made clear where they stand about a woman's right to control her body. Make no mistake: This bill is another step in their plan to criminalize abortion nationwide.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished minority leader of the House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I would say: Here we go again. For those of us who have served in the United States Congress, this is: Here we go again.
This is legislation that is attempting to be wrapped in mercy that is without mercy. First of all, it is without fact. It is extremely important to know that if you were here in the United States Congress you know the history because we have already passed the bipartisan Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which reiterates the fact that it is illegal to interfere with a newborn. They are protected from both intentional harm by healthcare providers and harm from medical negligence--plain and simple, period at the end of the sentence.
Why are we here today?
We are here today for news clips. We are here today for quotes and condemnation of the other side of the aisle that wants to be reckless with the life of a child.
I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that those of us who have given birth and those of us who have lost in the birth process are extreme lovers of those wonderful opportunities of life.
I refuse and reject condemnation of my personal self because I believe these decisions are with a God--the woman's God and the families' God--her faith, doctors, and, of course, the persons who are a part of the medical profession.
I have article after article that talks about the tragedy of partial- birth abortion, which is the name used more than a decade ago. They always find creative names to be able to be criminalized.
We heard from a member of the Rules Committee who said: How dare you grab up a child, put them in an ambulance, and take them hundreds of miles away from their family?
Or maybe the family who found out that the multiple abnormalities of their child would not allow them to live, and they had waited 8 years for this wonderful baby. The decisions, unfortunately, of neither life nor death come easily for these children. There is a painful existence marked by periods of breathing cessation and seizures when they are born.
Because my OB was unable to get a good image of the brain until the 13th week, we understand that these are personal decisions. We understand that these are painful decisions.
So I stand with those families, I refuse to condemn those families, and I refuse to be merciless. I am giving mercy in voting against this legislation. I am voting against it now.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 26, the BornAlive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would establish requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
In the first week of the 118th Congress, extreme MAGA Republicans are launching attacks on reproductive freedom, intruding on medical decision-making, and keeping their promise to criminalize abortion nationwide with no exceptions.
H.R. 26 is a clear attack on health care providers and attempts to evoke power over the care that they provide to patients.
When the Senate attempted to pass this bill in 2019, 17 medical and public health organizations sent a letter in strong opposition to the bill stating that it represented ``a dangerous government intrusion into private health care decisions''.
This bill undermines medical professionals' training and critical judgment, minimizing their ability to determine the best medical treatment for their patients.
Medical professionals abide by a Code of Ethics during their career.
For lawmakers to undermine the work of medical professionals and attempt to prosecute them for doing what is right for their patients is inappropriate and misdirected.
This bill is a direct way to compromise the health and safety of patients.
A 2015 study published by the New England Journal of Medicine states that a baby's viability is the determining factor in the care that they receive.
The study states that ``active intervention for infants born before 22 weeks gestation is generally not recommended, whereas the approach for infants born at or after 22 weeks of gestation varies.''
Seeing that there are already standards in place to determine level of care, why should we as lawmakers intervene to override what medical professionals agree is the most appropriate medical treatment warranted by the circumstances.
To suggest that medical professionals would not provide equal and adequate medical attention to all patients is thoughtless, insulting, and uncivil.
For a party that advocated for minimal federal government interference and big government, Republicans are attempting to increase the federal government's jurisdiction over local governments.
Why should we as lawmakers seek to prosecute medical professionals that are simply doing their job?
This bill would force medical professionals to worry about criminal penalties and legislative interpretation when the appropriate medical care is already laid out.
This bill would remove a medical professional's ability to make the medically sound decision for their patient without government interference and the threat of repercussions.
This bill endangers infants because it puts Republican wishes ahead of appropriate medical care.
H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, is dangerous to both medical professionals and patients. Medical professionals would be placed under unnecessary scrutiny, when legislation and protocols are already in place for this situation.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill that would establish requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement written by Audrey Eisen titled: ``How The Abortion Ban Debate Became My Story.'' [From ACLU, Feb. 2, 2009] How the Abortion Ban Debate Became My Story (By Audrey Eisen)
I never thought that so-called ``partial-birth abortion'' would ever have anything to do with me. Why would it? I'm 34 years old and I desperately want children. My husband and I have been together for eight years, married for four, and trying to have a baby for two. Abortion was not something I thought much about.
But earlier this year, all that changed.
In November of 2002, after fighting infertility and experiencing the sadness of a miscarriage in July, we were thrilled to find ourselves pregnant again. While still apprehensive, we consciously decided to be excited--another loss would hurt just the same, regardless of whether or not we had allowed ourselves to be happy.
In the first few months, my endocrinologist performed regular ultrasounds to ensure that the embryo was developing normally. It was such a treat to be able to see our child growing. I kept the pictures and my thoughts in a pregnancy journal.
When it became evident that we were going to make it through the first trimester, my endocrinologist referred me to an obstetrician (OB). At my first appointment, the nurse put a fetal heart monitor on my belly and, much to our amazement, from a seemingly great distance, we heard the characteristic ``whoosh'' of our child's heartbeat. We were on top of the world thinking that, for sure, this one was going to make it.
At 13 weeks, however, all this changed abruptly when, during a routine ultrasound exam, my OB discovered our child had polydactyly (more than the normal number of digits). While at first we thought it was just the hands, we later learned that the feet were affected as well. At the time, my husband and I thought it was no big deal--we had both known people with an extra finger, and we were prepared to help our child live with the condition. However, we soon found out that an extra toe or finger were the least of our concerns: polydactyly is associated with over 100 syndromes, most commonly Trisomy 13.
Trisomy 13 is characterized by multiple abnormalities, many of which are not compatible with life beyond a couple of months. Most fetuses with Trisomy 13 die in utero; of those who make it to birth, almost half do not survive past the first month; roughly three-quarters die within 6 months. Long-term survival is one year. Unfortunately, neither life nor death come easily for these children--theirs is a painful existence marked by periods of breathing cessation and seizures. Because my OB was unable to get a good image of the brain during the 13th week ultrasound, we returned at 15 weeks.
The first thing my OB examined during this visit was the fetal brain. He didn't say a word. I could tell he was holding something back and asked that he tell me what he saw. He said, ``It is not normal.'' The rest of the scan was a blur as tears ran down my cheeks and those of my mother and husband, who had accompanied me to the doctor's office that day. Following the scan, the doctor left us alone to compose ourselves. I cried with my whole body, from the depths of my soul.
Shortly thereafter, I had other tests. These confirmed that our baby had Trisomy 13.
At this point we discussed our options with a genetic counselor. My husband and I both felt strongly that we did not want our child to suffer; we decided to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible. I had an abortion on the first day of my 16th week of pregnancy.
Soon after I had the procedure, I began to see news stories about a new federal ``partial birth abortion'' ban. Like many Americans, following the press on this issue over the past several years, I had thought, ``My God, this must be something horrible.'' But as I mourned the loss of my much- desired pregnancy, I came to realize that if such legislation passed, the right to safe second-trimester abortions like the one I had might not remain available to those women who come after me. While proponents of this ban claim that it is aimed at one procedure performed late in pregnancy, the reality is that it would prohibit the safest and most common procedures used in the second trimester, well before fetal viability. Without access to this care, I don't know how women will endure if after routine prenatal testing they discover, as we did, that their fetuses suffer from grave conditions incompatible with life; I don't know how I would have endured.
Two weeks following my abortion, we received a letter from the genetic counselor. Our child had numerous abnormalities: the brain, heart, and other internal organs were not developing properly. Our child was also a girl and we miss her very much. In our case, abortion was the only humane choice. This choice must be preserved for the sake of all women and their families. The American public needs to understand the consequences of this ban and that the human face of so-called ``partial-birth abortion,'' my face, could be their own.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).
Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. My, my, my. Here we go again. Republicans are racing full steam ahead to criminalize abortion nationwide.
Madam Speaker, the American people want women--not politicians--to make their own healthcare decisions, including those about abortion.
So as to this misleading and offensively named bill, let's vote it down. Let's say no to putting women's lives in danger, no to denying patients needing lifesaving care, and no to putting healthcare providers in prison for doing their job.
Madam Speaker, because I love my grandchildren, I reject the extreme Republican agenda, and I am standing here today with the Democrats for people to have the freedom to make their own personal decisions about their health, their life, and their future.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, Mr. Scalise and every other Republican who has spoken on this bill is simply wrong on the facts. It is illegal and always has been illegal in every State and then Federal law to kill an infant born alive. It is illegal and always has been illegal not to provide that infant with appropriate medical care.
Just to make sure that no one had any doubts of that, we passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act with bipartisan support in 2002.
The problem with this bill is not that it provides any new protections for infants. The problem with this bill is that it endangers some infants by stating that that infant must immediately be brought to the hospital where, depending on the circumstances, that may be the right thing to do for the health and survival of that infant or it may not.
That is the problem with this bill.
It directs and mandates a certain medical care which may not be appropriate, and which may even endanger the life of an infant in certain circumstances. That is why we oppose this bill. It is not because we don't think that babies born alive must be saved, but because we do think that babies born alive must be saved.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu.)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about freedom, specifically, individual freedom, a core American value, a value that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have for years co-opted, weaponized, and distorted.
I simply do not understand how my Republican colleagues can demand the individual freedom to spread a deadly disease to other people by not getting vaccinated or wearing masks yet have the gall to deny the individual freedom to make decisions about one's own body that has no impact on anyone else.
How can it be that autonomy to wear a mask or not is of greater importance than the autonomy over whether to have a baby or not?
Let me say it plainly: We cannot talk about preserving our individual freedoms while simultaneously ripping away a fundamental freedom for women in this country. Control over one's reproductive health is a human right.
We are in the first week of Congress, and what are we focused on?
Is it to fight inflation? No.
To create jobs for Americans? No.
To protect children from gun violence? No.
It is to continue the assault on our autonomy, on women's autonomy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I will end this debate by reiterating the point I made at the beginning: This legislation would do nothing to enhance protections or the quality of healthcare if an infant is born after an attempted abortion.
It has always been against the law to intentionally kill or harm a newborn infant, whatever the circumstances of its birth. It has always been against the law not to afford such an infant appropriate medical care. The bill does nothing new to protect infants.
The bill, however, is not harmless. Rather, if enacted, it could place the lives and health of newborn infants at risk. The bill directly interferes with a doctor's medical judgment and dictates a medical standard of care, namely, immediate transport to a hospital, that may not be appropriate in the particular circumstances.
That is why a broad coalition of healthcare provider groups, joined by a wide range of additional health, civil rights, and women's rights groups, strongly opposes this bill.
We should listen to these healthcare professionals. We should support keeping babies alive, which is what the Republicans say they want to do, but yet, they have this legislation that would endanger babies' lives by dictating a standard of care that may not be appropriate in certain situations. We should listen to these healthcare professionals.
This legislation is just another step in the Republicans' plan to criminalize abortion nationwide. The House must reject this seriously flawed bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source