North Korea Intelligence Enhancement Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his leadership in serving on this committee, and I thank Mr. Cohen for his very eloquent explanation.

Let me say that I stand with these women, Jenny R., Kathy L., Lindsey, and Taias, women who have experienced the tragedy of losing a child, wanting a child, and wanting the protection of Roe v. Wade. I stand with these women.

I rise today to again ask the question: Why do we divide over the wonderment of birth?

I am reminded of H.R. 2175, passed in 2002, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was widely supported.

Now, we come on the eve of a failed administration in its first year to stand as if we are doing something for those who are coming here-- and I have great respect for their position of pro-life--but it doesn't mean that we must undermine the Constitution, add mandatory minimums, make up needs where there are no needs. That is what this particular bill does.

This amendment to H.R. 4712 is clearly involving and intruding into a process between the mother, the doctor, the family, and her God. There is no evidence of lawbreaking that has been uncovered that necessitates congressional involvement.

Abortion is a proven safe, legal, and humane practice. It has to be that way under the law. But we are in the middle of violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court cases by passing this legislation: up to 5 years in prison, a threat of financially crippling lawsuits, and, of course, shutting down those health facilities that we absolutely need.

Let me be very clear: we should be dealing with this shutdown that the Republicans are planning and moving forward. The reason we should be dealing with the shutdown is because law enforcement officers have no money, our clinics have no money.

Madam Speaker, passing by the Capitol Police, it made me think of my own law enforcement officers in Houston, Texas. Because we do not have a budget, we do not have appropriations, we are about to shut down the government. We have a CR. There is no funding for police officers. There is no funding for the desperate people who have been impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Maria, and Irma. No funding whatsoever.

I salute the Senate and the Senate Democrats for standing firm for those people. There are no moneys for federally qualified health clinics. There are no moneys for children's health insurance.

You are not doing your job, and here we are trying to create mandatory minimums on a bill that is not necessary. I believe we should try to keep this government open with the right kind of law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4712, the ``Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.''

First of all, the majority's failure to govern and address the priorities of the American people is staggering as we are faced with a fourth continuing resolution finding ourselves four months into the fiscal year.

The majority has yet to come up with a long term spending bill rather than an incomplete stop gap that only covers the government until February 16.

Republicans have wasted time creating the GOP Tax Scam and now Republicans are still wasting time debating this anti-women bill once again while there is no DACA solution and hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have grown up in this country and greatly contribute to society are facing unfair deportation.

I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House majority to limit women's rights to safe and legal abortions.

H.R. 4712 amends the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act--a 2002 law that the pro-choice community did not oppose.

This bill, however, adds penalties to the law and an entirely new section in which Congress attempts to intrude directly into medical practice of abortion care for anti-choice ideological purposes.

Anti-choice lawmakers say this new bill is necessary because some babies ``survive'' abortion procedures.

They cite the now-discredited videos attacking Planned Parenthood as their evidence.

Of course, such allegations are untrue: newborns already have many legal protections, and there is no similarity between safe, legal abortion care and infanticide.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem.

No evidence of lawbreaking has been uncovered that necessitates congressional involvement.

Abortion practice is safe, legal, and humane; any evidence of wrongdoing can and should be handled under existing law.

If there is ever a case of harm or mistreatment of newborns, then of course, it should be investigated and prosecuted.

No such case exists here.

That makes it even clearer that H.R. 4712 must have other purposes; we believe the bill's true goals are to inflame the public with outrageous accusations, to interfere with medical care, and to intimidate doctors out of practice.

This legislation is consistent with the assaults that the Trump Administration and anti-abortion members of Congress in both the House and Senate have been undertaking throughout the 115th Congress and show no signs of ending.

The bill intrudes into medical practice, its mandate is so broad and the penalties so severe--up to five years in prison and the threat of financially crippling lawsuits--that one can only conclude that H.R. 4712 hopes to intimidate abortion providers out of practice.

This interference in medical care could also cause tremendous additional grief to some families making difficult decisions in heartbreaking cases.

We would not tolerate similar intrusion by politicians into any other medical specialty; abortion care is no different.

Finally, it is important to put this legislation into the proper context.

We are in the midst of an unprecedented assault against reproductive rights: this bill is just one in a litany to restrict a woman's right to choose while using women as political pawns with an extremist, anti- choice base.

Instead of spending time attempting to roll back women's constitutionally protected rights, this House should be advancing legislation that will reform our truly broken immigration and criminal justice systems.

The bill before us is offered for a simple purpose; to sensationalize opposition to abortion and serve as a political decoy to shut down our government.

The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to privacy includes her right to abortion.

Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted pregnancies.

Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade.

In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's health and safety.

Fights here in Congress have been no different.

In my state of Texas a law that would have cut off access to 75 percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.

On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that provided the fail range of services would be required to have a hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.

This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women.

Texas has 268,580 square miles only second in size to the state of California.

The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to reproductive services for millions of women in my state.

In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 healthcare providers in the state of Texas.

The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women to block the move to close clinics in my state.

It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms.

But we know that's not really the case.

If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety, they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being.

Instead, they are attacking Planned Parenthood in a back-handed attempt to ban abortion.

That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about protecting women's health, it's about politics.

Just as the 1988 Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel (or the Blue Ribbon Commission) sought to separate the question of ethics of abortion from the question ethics of using fetal tissue from legal elective abortions for medical research when laying the foundation for the 1993, NIH Health Revitalization Act (which passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support), we must separate the personal views of abortion from the legal issues of federal compliance.

Namely, the NIH Health Revitalization Act prohibits the payment or receipt of money or any other form of valuable consideration for fetal tissue, regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is being provided is funded or not.

A limited exception, and crux of the applicable issue of legality, lies with provision allowing for reimbursement for actual expenses

(e.g. storage, processing, transportation, etc.) of the tissue.

Planned Parenthood repeatedly maintains and supports that their affiliates involved with fetal tissue research comply with this requirement.

In fact, of the 700+ affiliate health care centers across the country, only 4 Planned Parenthood affiliates currently offer tissue donation service and of those 4, only 2 (California and Washington) offer fetal tissue donation services--that's 1 percent of all Planned Parenthood service centers.

The California affiliate receives a modest reimbursement of $60 per tissue specimen and the Washington affiliate receives no reimbursement.

It is worth noting that fetal tissue has been used for decades.

Since the 1920's researchers have used fetal tissue to study and treat various neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, immune deficiencies, cancers and life-threatening blood diseases.

One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year.

The most widely known application in the field of human fetal tissue transplantation has been the treatment of Parkinson's disease.

Many of our other common vaccines, such as polio, measles, chicken pox, rubella and shingles, have been developed through the use of fetal tissue or cell lines derived from fetal tissue.

When looking at the 1 percent of health care providers involved in fetal tissue donation and research, and no clear credible proof of illegal activity, it is obvious that attacks on Planned Parenthood are wholly misguided.

Planned Parenthood has one of the most rigorous Medical standards and accreditation processes in the country.

It is the only national provider that has developed a single set of evidence-based Medical Standards and Guidelines that define how health care is provided throughout the country.

Guidelines are developed and updated annually by a group of nationally-renowned experts, physicians, and scientists, including medical experts from Harvard and Columbia.

Planned Parenthood affiliates must submit to accreditation reviews that include 100 indicators (or high level areas of review) and over 600 individual Elements of Performance (or measures for review). Half of these relate to the provision of medical care and patient safety.

Violations of mandatory reporting regulations are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

It is no secret that the Center for Medical Progress is an extreme anti-choice organization with a goal of outlawing legal abortion procedures in this country.

To achieve that goal, they have shamelessly targeted Planned Parenthood and the funding that provides healthcare services to millions of women every year.

They continue to use deceptive tactics and secret videos to try and undermine Planned Parenthood.

Just like Live Action, the Center for Medical Progress is not a group that can be taken credibly.

The Center for Medical Progress is simply recreating a history doctoring and manipulating video intended to create misimpressions about Planned Parenthood.

It is a coordinated effort by anti-choice forces--not only on Planned Parenthood or a woman's right to choose, but on women's health care across the board.

Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial generation.

My colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to services that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and STD's, and improve their overall health through preventative screenings, education and planning, rather than restricting their access to lawfully entitled family-planning and private health services.

I urge all Members to vote against this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4712, 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 enhance the quality of care if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. What it would do, however, is directly interfere with the 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.

Let me say at the outset of this debate very clearly, 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 implications that providers who provide abortions routinely act in a callous or 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. The bill specifically just reiterated existing law in florid language and did nothing to interfere with a doctor's 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 in the best interest of the child's health and well-being.

This mandate effectively overrides the case-by-case exercise of professional medical judgment by healthcare providers and replaces it with a blanket rule enforceable with criminal penalties. Such a ham- fisted approach fails to consider the fact that, in many cases, it may be safer and more conducive for the infant's health to care for the infant where it was born rather than transporting it many miles away. But this bill assumes that Congress knows better, and it imposes a new obligation on providers that, rather than saving lives, could put infants at risk.

I am sure that such a result is not what the bill's supporters intend, but all too often, this is what happens when Members of Congress try to dictate a physician's exercise of professional medical judgment.

Perhaps if this bill had gone through regular order, we could have avoided this unfortunate situation, but there has never been a committee markup or a hearing on this bill. 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 a chorus of provider groups oppose the bill.

This is clearly an effort to have this vote coincide with the presence of many anti-choice demonstrators in Washington. Sadly, rather than protecting infants, my Republican colleagues are putting them at greater risk in the service of politics.

I cannot support H.R. 4712 because it mandates a particular course of treatment: immediate transport to a hospital, which may not be appropriate in

every case and may be medically dangerous in certain cases. It abandons the practice of considering the best medical interest of infants and their mothers.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the ranking Democrat on the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire if the other side is ready to close?

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

Madam Speaker, I 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.

The 2002 law reaffirmed that it has always been, and is now, against the law to intentionally kill or harm a newborn infant whatever the circumstances of its birth.

The other side has referred several times to the case of Dr. Gosnell. Dr. Gosnell is now in jail under a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, plus 30 years, convicted of first-degree murder without this bill, because it is already against the law not to give proper care or, God forbid, to murder a baby born alive.

The law already requires the highest standard of care for all newborns. This bill does nothing new to protect infants in any respect.

The bill, however, is not harmless. Rather, by demanding the immediate transportation of the newborn to a hospital, regardless of the medical or other circumstances, it would place the lives and health of some newborn infants at risk.

The bill directly interferes with a doctor's medical judgment and dictates a particular course of action that may be harmful to the newborn in the particular circumstances. That is why a coalition of 13 healthcare provider groups, joined by a coalition of 25 additional health, civil rights, and women's rights groups, strongly opposes this bill. As the providers note, the bill wrongly ``injects politicians into the patient-physician relationship, disregarding providers' training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best course of action with their patients.''

Let me add one other thing. This bill does not interfere, in any way, with the rights secured by the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. That decision guarantees the right of a woman to choose an abortion if she wishes.

It does not, nor does any other law or any other provision, negate the command of the law that everyone respects that any newborn child, whatever the circumstances of its birth, must be cared for in the best possible medical way, and, of course, deliberately killing it would be first-degree murder.

This bill does not change this, but this bill does do harm by presenting risk to certain newborns by demanding their immediate transport to the hospital when it may be harmful to their health to do so.

We should listen to the healthcare professionals, we should respect their judgment, and the House must reject this seriously flawed bill.

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

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, I call up the bill (H.R. 4712) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4712.

Madam Speaker, the pro-life movement in Washington today is so exciting. Forty-five years ago this month, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Roe v. Wade to make abortion legal and available nationwide.

While many abortion activists celebrate this anniversary, it represents a particularly somber occasion for those of us who advocate for life at all stages. Every year since this ruling, the pro-life community has gathered in Washington to march in peaceful protest, and that is exactly what brought thousands of passionate individuals here today.

I would like to extend a very sincere thank-you to each and every person who made this trip today to participate in the March for Life. For those individuals, their dedication to the pro-life movement is inspiring, and I and many of my colleagues stand with them.

I would especially like to recognize all of the individuals from my home State of Alabama who made the 12- to 13-hour trip. I am proud to have people like these Alabamians and others here to represent our great State and our Nation in this pro-life movement.

I believe it is only fitting that we take action today here in the House of Representatives to defend the defenseless as thousands of Americans are here to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. I am proud to stand here today as a cosponsor of the legislation that we are considering, H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

I would also like to thank my colleague from Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn, for her leadership on this legislation.

At this point, I don't think that it is a secret that I am unapologetically pro-life, and I believe that our laws and our policies should assign the utmost importance to every life at every stage. I have been proud to stand here on the House floor many times in defense of the unborn, but this time we aren't even talking about unborn children. We are here to talk about those who have already been born.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is pretty simple. It states that, if a baby is born alive after a failed abortion, he or she must be given the same exact medical care that would be given to any other baby.

I know we will continue to play politics about when life begins and argue about the point at which the law should step in to protect it. And while I understand that not everyone agrees with my strong pro-life stance, I cannot fathom how any person could be opposed to legislation that protects babies who are so alive that you can look them in the eye.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has served a long time as the chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus

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

Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out that it is not currently Federal law, or the law in all 50 States, that a baby born alive after a failed abortion receive medical treatment instead of being left on the floor to die. That is why we are here today, to require under Federal law nationwide that a baby born alive after a failed abortion receives medical care and isn't left on the floor or in a trash can to die.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from North Carolina an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the lead sponsor of this important bill, who has been such a fierce advocate for the unborn.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Of course, like so many of my colleagues, I support this measure, but it feels really strange standing here today in defense of living, breathing children, to have to make a case that a baby who survives an abortion and is born into this world should be treated just like a baby born any other way, but, unfortunately, we must.

There is currently no law mandating that a baby born alive after a failed abortion receive medical treatment instead of being left to die. That is why we are here, to require, under Federal law nationwide, that a baby born alive after an abortion attempt receives the

same care that any other baby would receive.

So finally my question, Madam Speaker, to those who would oppose such a measure is this: How is the life of one baby any different or less valuable than the life of another baby? How does anyone justify that?

I know that, as Members of Congress, part of our job is to debate with each other about issues facing our Nation. I take that job responsibility very seriously. I just don't believe this particular issue is up for debate.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4712. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Alabama, a member of the Judiciary Committee, for her outstanding work on this issue.

Today, thousands of people are rallying in the Nation's Capital to be part of the March for Life and to join a celebration of hope and compassion for those who do not yet have a voice and to save the lives of the unborn.

Many millions more have viewed videos of representatives of Planned Parenthood, which performs some 40 percent of all abortions each year. Those videos, recorded undercover, sadly portray a much darker side of our society. They show discussions of the exchange of money for the body parts of aborted babies. They also include discussions of instances during which in course of an attempted abortion, a baby is born intact and then shipped to a lab for the use of its body parts.

Congress must move immediately to protect any children born alive during the course of a failed abortion.

The bill before us today provides that in the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive, any healthcare practitioner present must exercise the same degree of professional care to preserve the life of the child as he or she would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.

The bill also provides that the child must be immediately-- immediately--transported and admitted to a hospital. If a baby alive is left to die, the penalty can be up to 5 years in jail. If the child is cut open for its body parts or if some other overt act is taken, the punishment is that for first-degree murder, which must include life in prison or the death penalty.

Babies are born alive during failed abortions. The House Judiciary Committee heard direct testimony by two grown women who, as babies, survived attempted abortions. Gianna Jessen's mother was advised by Planned Parenthood to have an abortion. But as Ms. Jessen testified: ``Instead of dying, I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles.'' Her medical records state clearly that she was born alive during an abortion.

She continued to say: ``Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die. I was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, which was caused by a lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving the abortion. I was never supposed to hold my head up or walk. I do. And cerebral palsy is a great gift to me.''

Just think of that for a moment. Ms. Jessen says cerebral palsy is a gift to her because it came with the gift of life. She forgave her mother long ago and gives praise each day for that gift of life, which she enjoys to its fullest to this day.

Ms. Jessen presented a picture at the hearing showing the results of the sort of abortion she survived.

I urge my colleagues to support the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act so others who survive failed abortions can have the same chance to be as thankful as Ms. Jessen and to support all efforts to save the unborn as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4712, the latest attempt by House Republicans to come between physicians and their patients.

H.R. 4712 amends the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (P.L. No: 107-207) which I voted for because it codified current law. Unfortunately, H.R. 4712 amends the bipartisan Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, injecting partisan politics into the healthcare decisions of women and their physicians.

H.R. 4712 would overrule medical professionals by forcing that a newborn infant be transported to a hospital regardless of whether that would be best for the infant's health. Not only is this a dangerous intrusion into the medical decision-making of doctors, but it also may endanger infant health. Even if it is in the best interest of the infant's health, if a doctor violates this law's mandate, automatic criminal penalties of prison time, crippling fines, or both would be applied to that medical professional.

Although supporters of this bill claim that their intentions are only to protect newborn infants from medical negligence, the true objectives of this legislation are clear: spread misinformation about women's reproductive health and to dissuade medical professionals from entering the practice of abortion services.

This legislation is unnecessary. Today, abortion practice is safe, legal, and highly regulated to ensure that the best possible care is provided to a woman. Existing law ensures that medical professionals meet these standards. Let me be clear, an individual who performs illegal abortion services should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I join all Members of Congress and all Americans in opposition to the horrific actions of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. There is no dispute that Dr. Gosnell deserved to be prosecuted, found guilty, and face the multiple life sentences that he is now serving due to the laws already in place in Pennsylvania and throughout the nation.

Unfortunately, H.R. 4712 is yet another assault by the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans on women's reproductive health. Congress' most basic responsibility is funding the government and today we are facing a government shutdown. I urge my Republican colleagues to stop playing politics with women's health and get back to addressing the urgent needs of the American people like keeping the government open.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4712.