Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 36) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, 44 years ago, the Supreme Court issued its landmark Roe v. Wade decision. It reaffirmed the constitutionally protected right of every woman to safe and legal healthcare, including the right to choose.

When life puts a woman in even the toughest of circumstances, the highest court in the land said the decision that she makes should be hers, free from any interference from the government.

Roe v. Wade is a firewall that women rely on, but with every passing year and every new session of Congress, politicians have tried to chip away at it brick by brick, hoping it will crumble away.

Most politicians are not medical professionals. We shouldn't be meddling in healthcare decisions that should be made between a woman, her doctor, her family, and anyone else that she chooses to include. The American people are tired of politicians who are not doctors, often playing one on television with this medical decision.

This is the only medical procedure that Congress has made an attempt to regulate, the only one, and it says quite plainly: We can't trust women to make a decision; we have to do it for them. The majority tries to direct this over and over again.

The medical professionals whom we should be listening to all oppose this ban. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists call it a part of a legislative agenda that is ``not based on sound science'' and that ``attempt to prescribe how physicians should care for their patients.''

That certainly speaks it loudly.

The American Medical Association said that it ``strongly condemns any interference by the government or other third parties that causes a physician to compromise his or her medical judgment as to what information or treatment is in the best interest of the patient.''

Conservative political groups have also been pushing the bill to try to use it to run up the score in the next election. Why do they do it? Well, the main sponsor of this bill has admitted--and I hope everybody hears this; this is a Congressman from Arizona who sponsors this bill, who admitted the abortion bans are, in his words, good politics--``it will cost some people the election, but it will cost more Democrats the election than it will Republicans. I am convinced that in very few districts in America someone will lose because they voted'' for this ban. ``And if that is the case, maybe they need a different district anyway,'' whatever that means.

That makes it as plain as day, as far as I am concerned, as to why, year after year, for 40 years, we have been confronted with this.

It is abhorrent to me, and it should be to everyone here, that matters of personal conscience are being reduced to who is up and who is down in the polls.

This bill is dangerous, and it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court established in Roe v. Wade, and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that a woman has the unequivocal right to choose abortion care. This is the Constitution of the United States that we all justly revere.

Meanwhile, every Federal court that has reached a decision on bans like this in States has blocked it every time. This includes rulings striking down bans in States like Arizona, Idaho, Arkansas, North Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us is nothing more than the latest attempt by the majority to pass off political posturing as proven science.

Now, after birth, strangely, this body exhibits scarce attention to the well-being of the child, and that is proven by the fact that you cut back on food stamps; Women, Infants, and Children care; daycare; Head Start; one after the other, the same group that couldn't find it in their hearts last Friday to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program before it expired, along with community health services, which again helps children. More than 9 million children in America get their health insurance through the program that expired.

The majority did absolutely nothing after 20 children, 6-year-olds and 7-year-olds, were shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, 5 years ago. And funding, as I said, for both food stamps and the school lunch program is routinely cut.

I don't know anything else to call that but pure hypocrisy: We love it until it is born, and then it is somebody else's problem.

A 3-year-old girl in my district was recently killed by the adults she believed were supposed to take care of her. They abused her so violently that she was bruised from head to toe and was internally hurt. There were adults around, but not a single one helped her.

The Child Protective Services of Monroe County got two reports about abuse and neglect, but the agency was too overworked and stretched too thin to act in time, which is another hypocrisy: We are not going to fund those programs enough so that little children would live. Three years old, and nobody lifted a finger to help this child. They did nothing to save her life.

This is just some of the reality that children face today. All too often, this Congress does absolutely nothing to address it. To truly care about children is to care for them long after they are born.

Now, we have taken up this bill before, and it was a one-house bill, never able to pass the Senate, and I sincerely hope this bill sees that same fate.

When the American people went to the ballot box, they were electing politicians, not somebody to meddle around with their medical needs. It is simply appalling. Just remind yourself that the only procedure that we deal with is the fact of a woman's right to choose, which is protected by the Constitution of the United States. Enough already.

Mr. Speaker, the majority acts like a group of elected physicians. It has some. They are quiet. It is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my colleague is saying, but there is no scientific evidence or proof that an unborn fetus feels the pain. That is one of the reasons we are not discussing it over here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), a doctor.

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

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, which deals with children as well. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people, children, who are Americans in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto), to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the majority keeps trying to take the women's personal decision and put it in someone else's hands. Over the years, they have tried to allow bosses to make the healthcare decisions for their employees. They pushed a bill that would allow women to die if an emergency room employee coming to her aid had a ``conscientious objection'' to performing an abortion that would save her life.

Today, they are trying to pass an abortion ban that would put up even more obstacles and prevent women from receiving safe and legal abortion, which is protected by the Constitution.

The bill before us today strikes at the heart of Roe v. Wade. Opponents of the Supreme Court decision have been clear and outspoken that that is precisely their goal. The ban on abortions after 20 weeks does not contain reasonable exceptions for victims of rape and incest. The legislation flies in the face of what the American people--women and men--want us to be doing.

The majority must have quickly forgotten the national Women's March that took place in January. Millions of persons across the country and around the globe marched in the largest day of protest in our Nation's history. More than half a million people took to the streets right here in the Nation's Capital. They sent a message to the majority to respect their rights, including their right to choose.

If people sometimes ask women why we are still marching and calling and writing about the four decades after the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which it has since upheld, it is because of bills like this. We constantly have to refight the battles our mothers and grandmothers won for us. This legislation, again, is proof of that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question to the rule and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, a former abortionist, Dr. Levatino testified before Congress and described how he and other abortionists actually kill helpless babies. He killed 1,200 of them. He said: ``Imagine, if you can, that you are a pro-choice OB-GYN like I was. Using a Sopher 13-inch clamp with rows of ridges or teeth, grasp anything you can inside the womb. Once you grasp something inside, squeeze on the clamp, set the jaws and pull hard--really hard. You feel something let go, and out pops a fully formed leg about 6 inches long.

Reach in again and grasp anything you can, and out pops an arm. Reach in again, and again, and again with the clamp, and tear out the spine, the intestines, the heart and lungs.''

Even if pain wasn't present, Madam Speaker, dismembering a child is violence against children, and it is inhumane. But these babies actually suffer excruciating pain during the abortion.

Dr. Colleen Malloy from Northwestern University has said: ``In today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at 20 weeks and are able to witness their ex-utero growth. I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment.''

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 36.

Overwhelming majorities of Americans--some 60-64% according to pollsters--support legal protection for pain-capable unborn children.

Today we know that unborn babies not only die but suffer excruciating pain during dismemberment abortion--a cruelty that rips arms and legs off a helpless child.

A former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, testified before Congress that he had performed 1,200 abortions--over 100 late-term abortions up to 24 weeks.

Dr. Levatino described what the abortionist actually does to the helpless child. ``Imagine if you can that you are a pro-choice obstetrician/gynecologist like I was.'' Using a Sopher 13'' clamp with rows of ridges or teeth, ``grasp anything you can'' inside the womb. ``Once you've grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard--really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp anything you can . . . and out pops an arm.'' He noted that ``a second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure.'' He said, ``Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.''

Madam Speaker, even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy gets it. In his dissent to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2000 Stenberg v Carhart decision, Justice Kennedy observed that in D&E dismemberment abortions, ``The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.'' Justice Kennedy added in the Court's 2007 opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart that D&E abortions are ``laden with the power to devalue human life . . .''

Even if pain wasn't present, dismembering a child is violence against children and inhumane. But these babies actually suffer.

Dr. Robert White, professor of neurosurgery at Case Western Reserve University said an unborn child at 20 weeks gestation ``is fully capable of experiencing pain . . . without question, (abortion) is a dreadfully painful experience . . .''

In an expert report prepared for the U.S. Justice Department, Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand, a pediatrician specializing in the care of critically ill newborns and children who has conducted intensive research of pain and stress in the human newborn and fetus said: ``. . .the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by the fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children . . .'' Why? Dr. Anand points out that ``the highest density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development occurs in utero from 20 to 30 weeks gestation . . . Thus, a fetus at 20 to 32 weeks of gestation would experience a much more intense pain than older infants or children or adults.''

Dr. Colleen Malloy, assistant professor, Division of Neonatology at the Northwestern University, in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee said: ``When we speak of infants at 20 weeks post- fertilization we no longer have to rely on inferences or ultrasound imagery, because such premature patients are kicking, moving and reacting and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive care unit.''

Dr. Malloy went on to say, ``in today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth.'' She says ``I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection''

In an undercover video released by David Daleidan, a Planned Parenthood Medical Director explains that before beginning a late abortion she completes a clinical documentation form that says ``I intend to utilize dismemberment techniques for this procedure.''

Notice the words--``dismemberment techniques''--in order to ``extract the fetus in multiple parts.''

But seriously, we've known much of this for years. In 2006 I authored the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act that garnered 250 votes in favor-- including 40 Democrats--to 162 against. I remember thinking on the day of the vote: ``how can anyone vote to refuse to make child pain information part of informed consent?''

Congressman Trent Franks has authored four extraordinarily important bills over the years to actually protect pain-capable babies in federal law from the violence of abortion including Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts that passed the House of Representatives in 2013 and again in 2015. Tragically, President Obama vowed to veto this child protection legislation and the Senate failed to even pass it. However, should the House pass H.R. 36 today and if the Senate passes it as well, President Trump has said he would sign it.

Not only will babies be protected by federal law at five months and the pain suffered by these babies averted, but H.R. 36 requires that a late abortion permitted under limited circumstances provide the ``best opportunity for the unborn child to survive'' and that ``a second physician trained in neonatal resuscitation'' be ``present and prepared to provide care to a child'' to the same degree as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.

Thus, ``any health care practitioner present at the time shall humanely exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to a child born alive at the same gestational age in the course of a natural birth.''

Moreover, ``following the care required to be rendered . . . the child born alive shall be immediately transported and admitted to the hospital.''

Sixteen states have enacted pain-capable unborn child laws that closely parallel the bill before us today. These include Ohio, Texas, Nebraska, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that my colleagues respect unborn children as our nation's littlest patients who like any other patient may need diagnosis and benign interventions to treat disability or disease.

And preemies are surviving earlier and healthier as technology and medical science advance. Micah Pickering is a healthy 5 year old today. He was born prematurely at 20 weeks and was the size of this M&M candy bag. Micah is the face of the pro-life movement. That is why the bill before us today is ``Micah's Law.''

A recent study of nearly 5,000 babies published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed that nearly a quarter of the premature babies born at 22 weeks survived. (Let me note that the 22 weeks gestational age referred to in the study is equivalent to 20 weeks fetal age using the age dating system employed by H.R. 36).

Researchers at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) are developing a technology that they hope--in a decade--will be the new standard of care for extremely premature infants. Building a bridge between the mother's womb and the outside world, the artificial wombs provide a soft, sterile, fluid filled environment for the child to continue to grow.

The babies we seek to protect from harm today may survive if treated humanely, with expertise and compassion--not the cruelty of the abortion.

Four years ago, Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder, conspiracy to kill and involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Even though the news of Gosnell's child slaughter was largely suppressed by the mainstream media, many of my colleagues may remember that Dr. Gosnell operated a large Philadelphia abortion clinic where women died and countless babies were dismembered or chemically destroyed often by having their spinal cords snipped----all gruesome procedures causing excruciating pain to the victim.

The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Micah's Law, is needed now more than ever because there are Gosnells all over America, dismembering and decapitating pain-capable babies for profit. The bill protects kids from preventable pain--and death.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 548 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 548, which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

This important bill protects and extends compassion to the most vulnerable among us, the unborn, by prohibiting abortions, with limited exceptions, after the point at which scientific evidence shows that an unborn child can feel pain.

Mr. Speaker, this really should be called Micah's bill in honor of a little boy named Micah Pickering, who was here on the Hill last week with his mom. He was born at 20 weeks old. And we saw, and we see from babies like Micah, that with the right medical care, babies born at 20 weeks can survive and grow into healthy adults.

Micah's mother spoke last week about her experiences: ``When Micah was born, his eyes were still fused shut. His bones were not hardened yet. He couldn't breathe on his own. He was medicated to stay comfortable from pain. We were told not to touch his skin, as his skin was so sensitive it could hurt him and tear the skin. I was there to see his first set of hiccups, his first sneezes, and his first drop of milk placed on his lips. His first smile, his first laugh. He was alive. He was fighting. He wanted to live.''

Today, Mr. Speaker, Micah is a healthy 5-year-old boy.

Babies like Micah at 20 weeks have well developed brains and central nervous systems, developed enough so that medical evidence has increasingly confirmed these babies feel pain, and not only pain, but intense and possibly excruciating pain.

Research also indicates that, after 20 weeks, an unborn baby's responses to painful stimuli are similar to adult responses, to the extent that when surgeons, Mr. Speaker, are performing in-utero surgery, corrective procedures on these unborn children, surgeons have seen babies flinch, jerk, and recoil from those sharp objects and incisions.

In response to this, Mr. Speaker, surgeons routinely now administer anesthesia to unborn children in the womb before performing surgery. This anesthesia has been associated with a significant increase in babies' stress hormone levels during medical procedures.

Mr. Speaker, late-term abortions, usually performed by inducing labor after the fetus has been injected with a lethal pharmacological agent or by the horrific practice of dismemberment, causing babies intense pain, should be illegal, and that is what this bill ensures.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this bill also takes important steps to protect women, providing exceptions for those cases of rape, and incest, and the life of the mother.

H.R. 36 also provides women with a cause of action, allowing them to sue abortionists who don't provide protection for aborted babies who are born alive.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act protects the sanctity of life by ensuring protection from pain for the most vulnerable among us.

Mr. Speaker, this is a moral obligation of this House and of our government. Therefore, I urge support for the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 36.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

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

I think that it is important to acknowledge the pain of the cases that those on the other side of the aisle are mentioning. But I would note, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no mention, no discussion on the other side of the aisle about the pain that these babies feel, and that when you are in a situation like the ones that have been described, what is happening is those babies are being subjected to really, oftentimes, a horrific procedure. The question is, because a baby is found to have some chromosomal anomaly, to have some very severe handicap, whether or not they deserve to be subjected to the pain we now know they feel.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have seen work done by Northwestern University that demonstrates that the pain that these young preemies feel may, in fact, be even worse than the pain that older babies feel, because the pain inhibitors develop later in life than the pain receptors do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to ignore the challenges and the issues involved here with respect to the pain that these babies feel. I would also note, Mr. Speaker, that the CBO, in a very unusual step, has assessed that this bill itself would save 2,750 lives annually. That is something that the CBO doesn't often do, but it is very important for us to recognize.

I don't think we can have a discussion about this bill, about these issues, without acknowledging the pain that these babies feel, and I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to focus on that as well.

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

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

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that the scientific evidence is extensive in terms of the pain that these unborn babies feel. In particular, the standard of care, Mr. Speaker, for babies who are born prematurely, as well as for babies who are patients in vitro, is to provide anesthesia. And that standard of care is based upon evidence that these babies have pain receptors, that these babies react to pain, and that they feel pain.

Mr. Speaker, I think the notion that there is no scientific evidence for this is flat wrong. I don't think we can ignore the example of babies like Micah, babies who are born, babies who grow up to lead very full and healthy lives and who deserve a chance.

Mr. Speaker, I think that as individuals and as Representatives, elected Representatives, it is our obligation, in fact, to do everything we can to protect these babies, and that is what this bill is about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for his work on this issue and for introducing this important bill. It is undeniable that we have a much better understanding today of life inside the womb than we did at the time of the passage of Roe v. Wade.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle express a commitment to science in all cases except where it matters most, in those cases that involve the preservation of human life. They don't want to talk about babies. They don't want to talk about the horrific procedures that we are dealing with today, and we have to. It is our obligation to.

Mr. Speaker, our country has banned partial-birth abortion in a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court, and I would just urge my colleagues to look at the decision in that opinion, Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision written by Justice Kennedy: talking in specific, quoting a nurse, talking about the reaction of a 26-week-old baby who was a victim of partial-birth abortion, what their physical reaction is, the mother of little babies reading that, and the description of what happens to a baby when they are killed--watching their hands expand and then contract, as any mother of a newborn infant has watched many times.

It is truly horrific, and I think, as a society, Mr. Speaker, we have to be willing to face the exact nature of what it is we are talking about. We have an obligation as elected Representatives, Mr. Speaker, to protect the lives of these unborn babies. This legislation would do that.

We have a moral obligation, and it is our job. It is in the interest of the States to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we do everything possible to protect life.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a bill that would protect babies at moments when we know they can feel pain in the womb. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of both the rule and of H.R. 36 so that we can continue to protect and save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Conyers and I can remember the same type of hearings and the same type of legislation many years ago, again denying women their constitutional rights. I can see as clear as I can see you, Madam Speaker, the women who were sitting and begging us not to undermine them, their doctor, and their faith.

So I rise today to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: You have got it wrong. There are no mass abortions. There is no call for mass abortions. The women that are undergoing these procedures are women who have prayed and who have looked to their faith, their doctor, and their family.

So I oppose this bill because it puts the lives of women at risk, it interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and it diverts attention from the real problem facing American women. Let us reauthorize SCHIP. People are crying about that in my district. How outrageous.

One of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances. It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur after 20 weeks.

What number did I say? 10? 20? 1.5, and this is not diminishing the aspects of this.

But it is those women who have prayed. They have sought doctors' help, and they, as well, have sought their family's consultation.

We are making a mockery of these women. These women are not standing on the street corner saying, ``I want to have an abortion.'' They have a serious situation, like April Salazar.

At 18 weeks, she and her husband found out that their baby had a lethal diagnosis, and if she carried the pregnancy to term and he was born alive, he would die shortly from suffocation. It is not pain of getting him out--he would die. April hoped the news wasn't true, so she requested more tests to confirm the diagnosis. At 21 weeks she had an abortion. This bill would have stopped April.

This would have stopped April, her husband, her family, her God, and her doctor from making the decision.

Even the exceptions are bogus because you frighten these women. The idea of Jeni, in my home State, where they had a 2-day waiting period listening to a mandatory script about abortion and a sign-off from two separate doctors. Once you start this, you are taking it away from women who have sought their faith leader, their doctor, and their family.

This is a bad bill. We need to do some important things. I would hope with the carnage of Las Vegas, to save lives, we would ban assault weapons and we would not have that gentleman having 42 guns in his home and in his possession. That is what we need to fight to save lives, not this bill that undermines the rights of women and their faith and their doctor.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, the ``Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act'' and the underlying bill.

I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation the last time it was brought to the floor.

I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the American people.

A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating the Rights of Women Act of 2017.''

Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to help rebuild the ravaged communities hit by hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.

Madam Speaker, we could and should instead be voting reauthorize the important SCHIP program that has helped families get on their feet for years.

Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder.

The one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.

It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur after 20 weeks.

Women like Jeni from Texas, who, at 21 weeks, was told that her fetus had multiple severe defects.

Jeni could end the pregnancy or wait for the fetus to miscarry or die.

There was no way that the pregnancy would end in a live, healthy baby.

Jeni and her husband chose to terminate the pregnancy, but because they live in Texas, they were forced to endure several cruel restrictions: a two-day waiting period, listening to a mandatory script about abortion, and a sign-off from two separate doctors.

Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different.

No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.

These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.

Madam Speaker, I also strongly oppose H.R. 36 because it lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability.

While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.

By prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at ``the probable post- fertilization age'' of 20 weeks, H.R. 36 violates this clear and long standing constitutional rule.

Madam Speaker, the constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.

This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.

I strongly oppose H.R. 36 and urge all Members to join me in voting against this unwise measure that put the lives and health of women at risk.

I would like to include in the Record stories from two women:

April Salazar, New York: ``It would have been too hard for

me to carry to term, and it

seemed pointless to make the baby suffer too when she would

never survive.''

At 18 weeks, April and her husband found out that their

baby had lethal skeletal dysplasia. He would never be able to

breathe on his own. If she carried the pregnancy to term and

he was born alive, he would die shortly after of suffocation.

April hoped the news wasn't true, so she requested more tests

to confirm the diagnosis, which took two weeks. At 21 weeks,

she had an abortion. April shares her story because she has

found that it can change opinions. Several people she knows

personally who previously had been anti-abortion told her

that they would have done the same thing she did.

Julie Bindeman, Maryland: ``Everything about a later

termination is already so incredibly difficult even just

picking up the phone to make the appointment. The 20-week ban

adds another hurdle. It's just cruel.''

Julie's doctor told her and her husband that their son's

brain had a serious abnormality, a diagnosis that they

confirmed with tests, more ultrasounds, and an MRI. If the

baby survived birth, he would never speak, walk, or have

conscious thoughts based upon what had developed in his

brain. Julie and her husband decided to end the pregnancy,

and the soonest they could get the appointment was at 22

weeks. Julie could not find a surgeon in Maryland at that

time willing to perform the procedure, so she had to be

induced for labor and delivery. Her baby was born alive and

died very shortly after.

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

the bill (H.R. 36) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 36.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, also known as Micah's Law.

This bill prohibits most elective abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization and thereafter. That is the beginning of the fifth month of pregnancy. That is the point in a pregnancy when a substantial body of medical evidence shows that a baby in the womb can feel pain.

H.R. 36 is humane legislation for innocent babies and for mothers. It includes exceptions for the life of the mother and exceptions in the case of rape and incest. Additionally, this bill imposes criminal liability only on the medical professional performing that abortion, not on the mother.

Mr. Speaker, there is broad consensus within the medical community babies at 5 months in the womb are not only able to feel pain, they can hear music. They can even respond to human voices.

America is one of only seven countries in the world that still allows elective late-term abortions, joining North Korea and China.

Today, we understand so much more about a baby's development during a pregnancy. Voluntarily terminating the life of an innocent baby when we know that baby can feel pain can no longer be acceptable, and a majority of Americans agree.

Hearts and minds are changing. How many of us have marveled at the vivid sonogram images of a soon-to-be-born son, niece, or grandchild? How many of us have been amazed and so very grateful that babies born early, as early as 20 weeks, have a very real chance of survival?

Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects today's medical understanding about a baby's ability to feel pain. Micah's Law reflects those changing hearts and minds of Americans. Micah's Law reflects the higher aspirations of this Nation, a truly moral nation, to foster a culture of life.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 36.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), my esteemed colleague, the Judiciary Committee chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), my colleague and the lead sponsor of Micah's Law.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the Speaker of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman and physician from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard many impassioned stories this afternoon.

Much has changed since Roe v. Wade was upheld in the 1970s. We have made extraordinary medical advances. Today, we know with great certainty that babies in the womb, starting at the fifth month of pregnancy, do indeed feel pain.

It is extraordinarily heartbreaking when an unborn baby is diagnosed with a severe and life-threatening abnormality, still that baby deserves a right to life and right to dignity.

My sister was born with no esophagus and given little hope to live. By the grace of God and a miracle, within just weeks of her birth, a new technology, a new treatment came forward. Today, she is the proud mother of my two nieces.

Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It is a just bill. It is a moral bill to do what we are called to do, not just as Americans but as human beings: to protect lives of the most innocent.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support and urge every colleague to vote in support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.