Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006

Mr. Speaker, most, perhaps everybody in

this House today, has had to deal at one time or another with the emotional agony of a loved one dying from severe illness, an accident, or perhaps even an act of violence.

One of the questions we often ask is, Did they suffer? How much pain did they endure? Did we do everything we can to alleviate their pain?

Today, we can no longer deny, trivialize or gloss over the significant and ever-expanding body of knowledge that shows that an unborn child suffers real pain, excruciating pain, when he or she is dismembered, as in a D&E abortion, or jabbed with scissors as in a partial-birth abortion, or poisoned by an abortionist.

Not only is abortion violence against children, but we now know that the abortion act itself is painful to the baby as well. As the gentleman from Georgia pointed out a moment ago, Dr. Sunny Anand, an expert on pain for the unborn and the neonates, has pointed out that human fetuses possess the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and there is a whole growing body of evidence that clearly demonstrates that. Meanwhile, approximately 18,000 unborn children at 20 weeks or beyond, are destroyed without even the basic decency of pain relief.

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

Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart, and lungs. The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby's head. ``The head of the baby that age is about the size of a plum,'' he goes on to say, ``and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it when the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a pure white gelatinous material issued from the cervix. That was the baby's brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you have a really bad day,'' he goes on to say, ``like I often did, a little face may come out and stare right back at you.''

Mr. Speaker, this is a hideous, barbaric abuse of children. And, yes, sadly we are not stopping it with this legislation. I wish we had the ability to protect these children from this kind of child abuse. We need to affirm both patients, mother and baby. That is what prenatal care is all about. Our legislation is simply informed consent, requiring that a brochure, not unlike those booklets given to women in many States of the union that describe the growth of an unborn child and any problems she may experience, be given to her since she has the right to know this very important information.

Abortion methods kill, Mr. Speaker, and we need to at least allow that child pain medication information be conveyed to the mother.

Most--perhaps everyone in the House today--has had to deal at one time or another with the emotional agony of a loved one dying from severe illness, an accident or perhaps even an act of violence.

One of the questions we often ask is how much did they suffer? How much pain? Did we do everything possible to alleviate that pain?

Today, we can no longer deny, trivialize, or gloss over the significant and ever expanding body of knowledge that shows that an unborn child suffers real pain--excruciating pain--when he or she is dismembered as in a D & E abortion, or jabbed with scissors in a partial birth abortion, or poisoned by an abortionist.

Not only is abortion violence against children but we now know that abortion is painful to the baby as well.

In expert testimony provided to the Northern District of the US District Court in California during the partial birth abortion trials, Dr. Sunny Anand, Director of the Pain Neurobiology Lab at Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute said, ``the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborn's or older children.''

In testimony before the Virginia State Senate, Dr. Jean Wright of Emory University School of Medicine said ``Aspects of pain architecture begin as early as six to seven weeks, mature and are identified by their anatomy, their physiology, and the coordination of responses so that by 20-22 weeks of gestation, the evidence reveals a developed system of pain perception and response. . . . The ability to modulate or blunt the pain response does not develop until the last weeks of pregnancy and the first few weeks of infancy, leading us to believe that the pain perceived in the fetus is greater than that in the full- term infant.

Dr. Anand further describes before the court that the'' highest density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development occurs in utero,'' while still in the womb, ``from 20 to 30 weeks gestation. During this period, the epidermis is still very thin, leaving nerve fibers closer to the surface of the skin than in older neonates and adults.''

He went on to explain that the pain inhibitory mechanisms, in other words fibers which dampen and modulate the experience of pain, do not begin to develop until 32 to 34 weeks of gestation. Thus, Dr. Anand concludes, a fetus 20 to 32 weeks of gestation would experience a much more intense pain than older infants or children or adults when these groups are subjected to similar types of injury.

Dr. Anand points out on the question of fetal consciousness that more than 3 decades of research show that preterm infants are actively perceiving, learning and organizing information, and are constantly striving to regulate themselves, their environment and their experiences. All preterm infants actively approach and favor experiences that are developmentally supporting and actively avoiding experiences that are disruptive.

Additionally a recent British study measured blood flow and oxygen in the part of the brain that feels pain while blood was drawn during a heel lance. The results showed a surge of blood and oxygen in the sensory area of their brains, meaning the pain was processed in the higher levels of the brain. Indicating that these little boys and girls do feel pain.

Meanwhile approximately 18,000 unborn children at 20 weeks or beyond are destroyed without the basic decency of pain relief. That means that twice every hour a baby is destroyed without pain alleviation by methods that include the D and E abortion.

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is a modest but necessary expansion of informed consent.

To date several states have enacted informed consent laws that convey in booklet form to the mother the facts concerning development of an unborn baby as well as risks associated with abortions.

Our bipartisan legislation simply ensures that new information concerning pain capable in unborn babies be conveyed as well.

Under HR 6099, a woman considering an abortion at or past 20 weeks fertilization must simply be given an HHS produced brochure describing the most accurate and up to date information on unborn child pain. After that, the mother is given a decision form on which she may either request or decline pain relieving drugs for her baby prior to the abortion.

Is it our hope that this additional information may dissuade a woman from allowing her child to be killed? Absolutely.

I--we--believe good medicine should affirm the value, and dignity of every human life. We need to affirm both patients--mother and child.

For the child dismembered by hideous and abusive abortion methods like the D & E abortion that happen every day--the little girl or boy at least shouldn't be made to suffer.

Here's how Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist describes the painful D & E abortion.

``Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard--really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 4-5 inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs. . . The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby's head. The head of the baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the [Sopher] clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a puer white gelatinous material issued from the cervix. That was the baby's brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you.''

The Unborn Pain Child Awareness Act is a modest but necessary expansion of informed consent. Let me remind my colleagues that in State after State throughout the country these booklets like the one in my hand that describe fetal development are given to the woman prior to an abortion. These kinds of informed consent booklets have been vigorously opposed by the abortion lobby, and we know for a fact from former as well as current-day abortionists do not discuss the baby's pain. They rarely will talk about anything that is even remotely connected with the humanity of the unborn child. It is just not part of what they convey to the woman.

Let me also point out to my colleagues that the 2005 JAMA article that is being pushed by members and the press has been part of a slick disinformation campaign and is true junk science. The authors of that study failed to point out that their conflict of interest. Susan Lee is a medical student who was previously employed as a lawyer for NARAL, and Eleanor Drey, runs the largest abortion clinic in San Francisco, where they do 600 D and E or late-term abortions every year, those hideous abortions where the baby is dismembered and she has been a very strong advocate of partial birth abortion. Eleanor Drey too did not disclose as one of the authors of that study her affiliation. Talk about conflict of interest, and the study is riddled with holes.

Finally, what the legislation does, and let us be clear, it just requires the informed consent brochure from the Department of Health and Human Service and that the mother be given an informed consent form to sign.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006. This bill mandates that a woman seeking an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy be given a written brochure stating that research indicates that a fetus at that stage of development will feel pain during an abortion.

This bill also requires a doctor to offer the woman anesthesia for the fetus which she may either accept or decline.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this legislation is that the medical and scientific community has yet to reach a consensus with regard to the issue of when and if a fetus feels pain. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, along with physicians who are experts in fetal anesthesia and fetal surgery, know of no legitimate scientific data or information that supports these views. Despite this, Congress has decided to play politics with women's health.

This legislation may put women at risk. There is no evidence to show the effects on a woman by providing anesthesia directly to a fetus during an abortion. Without proper medical studies, we have no way of knowing how such procedures will affect a woman's health at the time of the abortion or in the future.

Mr. Speaker, supporters of this bill will argue that it includes an assurance that doctors who disagree with materials contained within these mandated brochures may offer their own views to patients. But what good comes from a doctor handing their patient a brochure and then conveying opposition to what is inside it? Instead of helping patients, Congress is interfering with a doctor's best medical judgment as well as the doctor-patient relationship.

Mr. Speaker, clearly written in this case by anti-choice advocates, these brochures are biased and define an abortion as ``the process of being killed.'' Normally I would support legislation which aims to offer women as much information as possible with respect to their medical decisions. Ensuring that patients have access to all of the important and relevant medical information should always be a priority for Congress, but this bill plays politics with those goals. Instead, it provides mandated, misleading information to women without proper scientific knowledge.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I think it is ill- advised. I think it sets a bad precedent for the type of information that is provided to patients. There is absolutely no reason why this should be mandated.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that this bill is on the Suspension Calendar, which is normally reserved for bills that are of an uncontroversial nature, and it is clear just from the statements that have already been made on our side of the aisle that this is a very controversial bill. There are a lot of feelings back and forth on the issue within the medical community, as has been explained by Mrs. Capps and Mr. Waxman. There is a huge controversy over whether there is a need for this information and whether or not the type of pain that is described actually exists. So I would contend that it really does not belong on the Suspension Calendar, and that is the main reason, I think, why I would urge Members to vote against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, again, in response to the previous speaker, I think the point should be made that right now, under the current law, there's nothing to prevent a physician from advising a woman their opinion in the manner of pain that might be inflicted on the fetus. The problem is that legislation is imposing a mandate, a mandate that is based on evidence that simply is not scientifically proven. And that is why we have various medical organizations, most notably of course, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and these are the people that are experts on anesthesia. And they say again, I quote, ``that there is no legitimate scientific data or information that supports the view this legislation purports with regard to the pain of the fetus.''

And that is the problem here. This is a mandate, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is a mistake to mandate that this be done when the science is not clear. And again, this is a bill on the Suspension Calendar. I would urge my colleagues to vote against it. We don't know what the true science is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read the text of this brochure. As I have said before, the problem with this legislation is it is a mandate, a mandate that the woman receive this brochure. And then it mandates in the legislation what the brochure should consist of. And I won't read the whole text, but let me just read part of it. It says, ``There is a significant body of evidence that unborn children at 20 weeks after fertilization have the physical structures necessary to experience pain. There is substantial evidence that at least by this point, unborn children draw away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain.''

And then it goes on to say, ``You may request that anesthesia or other pain-reducing drugs or drugs are administered directly to the pain-capable unborn child if you so desire.''

And then, ``In some cases, there may be some additional risk to you associated with administering such a drug.''

Now, you know, it is clear here that even the authors of this are not saying that this is definitive, only that there is a significant body of evidence that there may be pain experienced. And, it is also clear that the authors of the legislation understand that there may be some additional risk associated to the woman in administering such a drug. So again, this is, to think that you are going to mandate this in a brochure, when the scientific evidence of the impact on the fetus is not clear, and when there is the possibility, a real one, it is mentioned in here, that there may be additional risk to the woman, I think is just really the wrong thing to do to have this as a mandate that something has to be done.

And again, we are putting it on the Suspension Calendar, which is supposedly for noncontroversial measures. And again, I would urge my colleagues, we should not be putting this on the Suspension Calendar. We should not be mandating something that is not clear and where there may actually be additional risk to the woman herself. I think it is simply a mistake.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Again, in response to the previous speaker, and I respect her opinion, but there is nothing under the current law that doesn't allow a woman to have the option of anesthesia in the manner in which the gentlewoman describes. The problem here is that we are mandating that they be given a brochure that provides information that is not scientifically proven. We are not in any way, neither would I suggest, that any woman not be able to opt for that kind of anesthesia. But the issue here is whether we should be mandating that they be given a brochure that is not at all clear, from a scientific point of view, as to whether or not that pain is going to be felt and what the impact might be on the woman herself. I just think that what the proponents of this bill are suggesting is a mandate for something that is unclear. And that is the wrong thing to do in this circumstance. I think it creates a lot of confusion on the part of women who are in that position, and it should simply be left up to the doctor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just ask to make a minute closing remark myself, and then I will yield back the time.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say again, and again I respect my colleagues, particularly my colleague from New Jersey, who I know truly believes in this issue and has spent a great deal of time on the issue throughout his career, but I really think that in this case, that we are making a huge mistake.

First of all, this is on the Suspension Calendar. It should not be. This is a very controversial issue. It is still a huge controversy in the scientific community, and for us to mandate that every woman in this situation has to get what may be, in fact, misinformation, I think is wrong. And so I would urge my colleagues to vote this bill down, that it not be on the Suspension Calendar.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6099) to ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006.

This legislation is intended to ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child. It also ensures that women will have the chance to ask questions; and, if they so choose, request that pain-reducing medicines, anesthesia, or analgesia be administered to their unborn child before the abortion takes place.

At the outset, it is important to clarify that this legislation is not about the right to have an abortion. While citizens in other parts of the world, such as in Europe and in Canada, have the opportunity to vote and express their views on the issue of whether or not abortion should be legal, the United States is the only industrialized country in the world where its citizens do not have that right. The United States Supreme Court has effectively taken it away from the American people through its decisions.

As someone who believes in the sanctity of human life, I look forward to a day when the American citizens on both sides of the abortion debate can decide the issue democratically rather than having it decided for them through judicial activism. I trust the American people to make the right decision when that day comes.

But, Mr. Speaker, today rather than dealing with the legality of abortion itself, this legislation deals with the issue of informed consent for women choosing to have an abortion. The bill requires abortion providers to inform women about the pain experienced by their unborn child. It also requires women to be given a brochure and a consent form demonstrating that they have had an opportunity to make an inform decision on whether or not to administer pain mitigation to the unborn child before the abortion is performed.

A significant body of medical evidence now indicates that fetuses experience pain. Dr. Sunny Anand, a neurologist and the Nation's leading expert on fetal pain, testified that ``the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that experienced by term newborns or other children.''

Since Dr. Anand's groundbreaking research published in 1987 showed that by 20 weeks these fetuses can feel pain, other researchers have built on his work, further verifying the pain felt by the unborn. For example, just this year British researchers performed brain scans on premature babies as young as 23 weeks from fertilization and found new physiological evidence that these premature infants feel pain.

But perhaps more important than the scientific studies, we know that doctors who perform surgery on babies in the womb, as well as babies who are born prematurely, some as early as 23 weeks of gestation, routinely administer anesthesia to these children, just like an adult who is undergoing surgery.

As Dr. Jean Wright, a physician in Savannah, Georgia, who specializes in the care and anesthesia of critically ill children, testified before Congress last year, ``If you came back with me to Savannah tonight and came to our neonatal intensive care unit, we would stand between the bed of a 23-week infant, a 26-week infant, and you would not need a congressional hearing to figure out whether that infant feels pain. We roll back the sheets or blanket, and you would look to the facial expression, their response to the heel stick, you would understand that.''

As I have stated before, the problem that this legislation seeks to address is the issue of informed consent for women seeking abortions. Like most of us, women who arrive at clinics seeking abortions are usually not trained in the medical sciences. We rely on physicians to provide all of the information needed to make an informed decision.

In the case of abortion, we need to make sure that women know all the facts, including the evidence that unborn children feel pain. This is obviously for the benefit of the unborn child who may either be spared from abortion altogether or receive pain-reducing medicines.

Truly informed consent also benefits the woman who may decide against having an abortion, or may decide to use pain mitigation for the unborn child during the abortion procedure. Either way, she will be spared the severe psychological trauma that may result from making an uninformed decision.

This legislation is a commonsense measure that both pro-life and pro- choice Members should support. In fact, NARAL, a large pro-abortion organization, has publicly declared that they do not oppose the bill.

At this time, I would like to thank the lead sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for his work on this legislation and for being a stalwart in the pro-life cause in Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to my colleague from Georgia, a physician, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another physician, Dr. Weldon of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Sekula Gibbs), who is the third physician to speak on this issue in favor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to Mr. Pallone that I am prepared to yield the remaining time to Mr. Smith who will conclude the debate on our side, if he has no other speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. This legislation is based on the scientifically unsubstantiated assertion that a fetus feels pain at 20 weeks of pregnancy.

This is not the first time this Congress that Members have been asked to substitute our judgment for that of scientists or physicians. It is bad policy for Congress to substitute its opinion for the considered medical judgment of doctors and I have consistently opposed legislation that does this.

By passing this legislation, Congress will force doctors to provide information to patients that is not scientifically proven to be true. These doctors will be subject to fines if they do not provide women with a brochure published by the Department of Health and Human Services explaining that a fetus feels pain at 20-weeks and that administrating anesthesia for the fetus will reduce pain. The bill goes so far as to outline for the Department of Health and Human Services what must be included in the brochure. The language that this bill requires HHS to include in the brochure asserts that there is conclusive scientific evidence that a fetus feels pain. According to the legislation, the brochure must read: ``There is a significant body of evidence that unborn children at 20 weeks after fertilization have the physical structures necessary to experience pain. There is substantial evidence that at least by this point, unborn children draw away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain. There is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain, even though you receive a pain-reducing drug or drugs.'' This is, at best, misleading. We should not use legislative language to interpret scientific data that we do not understand and to direct physicians in their considered professional practice.

In August 2005 a literature review in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that ``evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.'' The review also concludes that administering ``fetal anesthesia or analgesia should not be recommended or routinely offered for abortion because current experimental techniques provide unknown fetal benefit and may increase risks for the woman.''

As policymakers, we should consider very seriously our actions that may overstep what is scientifically proven. In formulating public policy on scientific issues like global warming, stem cell research, alternative energy, and others, it is essential that we use science as a basis for legislation and not use legislation to attempt to make science.

I oppose this legislation because I believe that the decision of whether to have a baby should be left to individuals, their doctors, and their families without interference from the Government. I also oppose this legislation because of its circumvention of scientific evidence.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6099.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. I would point out that, despite the best efforts of some in this Chamber and from various interest groups to masquerade this as a pro-choice or pro-life issue, this is not about choice. This is quite simply an issue of who is qualified to provide medical information to patients: Congress or doctors? Frankly, patients are better served with medical information coming from a qualified medical professional than from a simple Polish lawyer from Southeast Michigan like myself.

Let me be clear: this bill requires that doctors provide women seeking an abortion past the twentieth week of gestation a brochure produced by the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill very clearly requires that the brochure include text written word for word by Congress. The patient would then have to sign a document saying she received the information. That document, again, would contain specific text written by Congress. The very idea that Congress would require that specific text imparting a medical opinion be handed out to patients is ludicrous. We are in the business of writing laws, not of keeping up on the most recent articles published in medical journals. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, where does this game of Congress playing doctor end? Will we next be writing scripts or brochures advocating for one chemotherapy treatment over another for cancer patients? I think not. I believe that most of us recognize that this is well beyond our capability as lawmakers.

Mr. Speaker, let's leave the decisions about medical science to the scholars and professionals who are qualified to make them and focus on our responsibilities as Members of Congress.

I've always wondered why we don't focus more of our attention on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Reducing the number of abortions performed in this country is certainly a goal we can all agree on and strive for. Instead of imposing ourselves on private relationships between doctors and patients, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come to the table to discuss how we can further this mutual goal.