U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–599 PDF 2012

SUSAN B. ANTHONY AND FREDERICK DOUGLASS 

PRENATAL NONDISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2011 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 3541 

DECEMBER 6, 2011 

Serial No. 112–74 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

[Vacant] 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

DECEMBER 6, 2011 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 3541, the ‘‘Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011’’ ................................................................................. 4 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution ....................... 1 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, and 

Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ..................................................... 21 

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ................ 23 

The Honorable Mike Quigley, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ............................ 23 

The Honorable Mike Pence, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana, and Vice-Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution ............... 25 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ......... 26 

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ............................... 26 

The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ................................ 28 

The Honorable Jim Jordan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ................................ 29 

WITNESSES 

Steven H. Aden, Vice President/Senior Counsel, Human Life Issues, Alliance 

Defense Fund 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 43 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 46 

Edwin Black, Author and Historian, The Feature Group 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 54 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 56 

Miriam W. Yeung, Executive Director, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 63 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 66 

Steven W. Mosher, President, Population Research Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 69 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 71 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 30

Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material Submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution .......................................................................................................... 96 

Material Submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on the Constitution .............................................................................................. 179 

(1) 

SUSAN B. ANTHONY AND FREDERICK DOUGLASS PRENATAL NONDISCRIMINATION ACT 

OF 2011 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:12 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Franks, Pence, Chabot, Forbes, King, 

Jordan, Conyers, Scott, and Quigley. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Paul Taylor, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; Jacki Pick, Counsel; Sarah Vance, Clerk; (Minority) David 

Lachmann, Subcommittee Staff Director; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. FRANKS. This meeting will come to order. 

I want to welcome all of you here today. We are grateful for your 

attendance, grateful to the people of this panel for being here with 

us. And I am going to go ahead and recognize myself for 5 minutes 

for an opening statement. 

Given the subject of this hearing, it seems appropriate to me that 

we all remind ourselves that the very bedrock foundation principle 

that gave birth to America in the first place was the conviction that 

all human beings are children of God and created equal in his 

sight. 

Throughout America’s history, we have struggled to fulfill that 

conviction in our national life. It took a civil war in this Nation to 

make the 7,000-year-old state-sanctioned practice of human slavery 

come to an end, and, ultimately, it did so across the world. American women overcame the mindless policy that deprived them of 

the right to vote in America. Then this Nation charged into Europe 

and arrested the hellish Nazi Holocaust. We crushed the Ku Klux 

Klan and prevailed in the dark days of our own civil rights struggle. 

And, in so many ways, we have made great progress in the area 

of civil rights in this country. But there is one glaring exception. 

We have overlooked unborn children and that life itself is the most 

foundational of all civil rights. 

The result is that today in America between 40 and 50 percent 

of all African American babies, virtually one in two, are killed beVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:46 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\120611\71599.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
2 

fore they are born, which is a greater cause of death for African 

Americans than heart disease, cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and violence 

combined. A Hispanic child is three times more likely to be aborted 

than a White child. A Black child is five times more likely to be 

aborted than a White child. Fourteen million Black babies have 

been aborted since Roe v. Wade. It translates to fully one-fourth of 

the African American population in America today. 

Now, you add to that the thousands of little girls who have been 

aborted in America simply because they are little girls instead of 

little boys. And these are travesties that should assault the mind 

and conscience of every American. 

The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act heard today by this Committee will help prevent 

race and sex discrimination against the unborn by prohibiting anyone from subjecting them to an abortion based on their sex or race. 

Now, there will be those who say that this bill has a much larger 

agenda, and let me respond simply by saying that I sincerely and 

passionately hope that they are right. I truly hope that the debate 

and passage of this bill will call all Americans, in and outside of 

Congress, to an inward and heartfelt reflection upon the humanity 

of unborn children and the inhumanity of what is being done to 

them in 2011 in the land of the free and the home of the brave. 

But, until then, can we not, at the very least, agree that it is 

wrong to knowingly kill unborn children because they are the 

wrong color or because they are baby girls instead of baby boys? 

You know, I have often asked myself what finally enlightened 

and changed the hearts of those across history who either perpetrated or supported or ignored the atrocities in human genocides 

of their day. And while I probably will never truly understand, I 

believe I caught a glimpse of that answer during the Thanksgiving 

recess from my 3-year-old little girl named Gracie. 

As we were watching her favorite laughing baby videos on 

YouTube, I inadvertently clicked on a video that showed a young 

man from China playing poignant and beautiful music on the piano 

with his feet because he had no arms. They had been amputated 

when he was a child. 

My little girl looked at me with wet little eyes and she said, 

‘‘Daddy, he doesn’t have any arms.’’ I said, ‘‘Yes, baby, but look how 

well he plays the piano with his feet. Isn’t that amazing?’’ And she 

said, ‘‘Yes, but, Daddy, we have to help him. We have to get some 

arms to give to him.’’ And I said, ‘‘Baby, there aren’t any extra 

arms. They are all attached to other people already.’’ And she 

thought for a moment, and she held up her own little arm and she 

said, ‘‘Daddy, we can give him one of my arms if it will fit on him, 

can’t we?’’ 

I believe the key to answering some of these seemingly unanswerable questions facing the human family is in how we see each 

other. On that video I saw an amazing young man who played 

heart-stirring music with his feet, but my little girl saw a child of 

God who had no arms and wanted to give him one of hers. How 

very thankful I am that my little girl was not one of the hundreds 

of millions of little girls whose lives and hearts were taken from 

this world before they ever saw the light of sunrise simply because 

they were little girls. 

3 

Across human history, the greatest voices among us have always 

emphasized the critical responsibility of each us to recognize and 

cherish the divine light of eternity shining in the soul of every last 

one of our fellow human beings. In 1847, Frederick Douglass said, 

‘‘Right is of no sex, truth is of no color. God is the father of us all, 

and all are brethren.’’ In Matthew 25, Jesus said, ‘‘Inasmuch as ye 

have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have 

done it unto me.’’ Thomas Jefferson said, ‘‘The care of human life 

and its happiness, and not its destruction, is the chief and only object of good government.’’ 

So, ladies and gentlemen, I know that when the subject is related 

in any way to abortion the doors of reason and human compassion 

in our minds and hearts often close and the humanity of the unborn can oftentimes no longer be seen. But this is the civil-rights 

struggle that will define our generation, and I hope this hearing 

today will begin to open those doors again. 

The bill, H.R. 3541, follows:] 

4 


HR3541-1.eps
5 


HR3541-2.eps
6 


HR3541-3.eps
7 


HR3541-4.eps
8 


HR3541-5.eps
9 


HR3541-6.eps
10 


HR3541-7.eps
11 


HR3541-8.eps
12 


HR3541-9.eps
13 


HR3541-10.eps
14 


HR3541-11.eps
15 


HR3541-12.eps
16 


HR3541-13.eps
17 


HR3541-14.eps
18 


HR3541-15.eps
19 


HR3541-16.eps
20 


HR3541-17.eps
21 

Mr. FRANKS. And, with that, I would like to yield to the distinguished former Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, for 

an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman. I am happy to join you 

today. 

I begin with a question about the title of this bill. Is there anybody on this Committee that can explain to me why this is called 

the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act? 

Mr. FRANKS. I will try to explain it as best I can, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, you know, Frederick Douglass fought for equal rights 

back in the days of slavery and was someone that had great ability 

to speak into the heart of Abraham Lincoln and probably made a 

profound difference today. And, secondly, Susan B. Anthony was a 

tremendous advocate for women’s right. 

And we are convinced that, at the very heart of this bill, that 

there is an effort here to try to carry on with those traditions and 

felt like this would be a good way to honor their service to mankind. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I have studied Frederick Douglass more than 

you, and I have never heard or read about him saying anything 

about prenatal nondiscrimination in the course of it. And I would 

invite you to put into the record just exactly why you put his name 

to this bill. 

Susan B. Anthony I know less about, but I can—I know she was 

a strong advocate for women’s rights. 

So I think this bill is a—the names are complete misnomers. And 

I think when we find out more about their careers, their speeches, 

their writings, their actions, I think that we will all find out that 

there is no relation whatsoever to the object of this measure and 

the two revered leaders whose names are on the title of this measure. 

What does the bill do? Oh, well, it makes it more difficult for 

women of color to obtain basic reproductive health-care services 

that should be available to all women. By threatening health-care 

professionals with prison time—that is what the bill does—it is inevitable that they will be reluctant to treat some patients, namely 

people of color, including Asian and Pacific Islanders, African 

Americans, interracial couples. 

Where someone might suspect that race or sex selection may 

have been a factor in the patient’s decision, doctors will be reluctant to perform any tests that might reveal the sex of the fetus or 

to reveal that information to their patients—information to which 

every patient has a right. 

Now, in my view, this measure would provide an opportunity for 

a conservative court to attack the very legal underpinning of Roe 

v. Wade. And I was hoping that the distinguished Chairman would 

suggest that that was one of the accusations that are being made 

about the objective of this bill. And if he had said this, he would 

be right, because I think that this is a way of chipping away at Roe 

v. Wade. 

Not since that decision has government ever arrogated to itself 

the power to decide whether a woman’s reason for a pre-viability 

abortion is satisfactory. This bill would be the first. And the reaVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:46 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\120611\71599.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
22 

sons women have for terminating pregnancy is something I am not 

able to, nor particularly care to, go into. Indeed, some have long opposed exceptions for preserving the life or health of women in legislation that otherwise restricts the rights to abortion. 

Take Henry Hyde, the former Chairman of this Committee. If he 

didn’t argue 100 times that health and safety of the woman should 

be no reason for them to be permitted an abortion, he didn’t say 

it once. He said it all the time, from the first time I met him in 

this Committee until his last day of service, particularly when he 

was Chairman of the Committee. He was wrong then, and those 

that argue that health and safety of a woman would not be grounds 

for an abortion are still as erroneous as this argument has always 

been. 

Now, just recently, some in this Committee have opposed requiring hospitals to perform emergency-room abortions even when a 

woman’s life is at stake—if you don’t believe me, ask them—in the 

‘‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.’’ And after public outrage 

forced many of my colleagues to remove language in the text of 

that bill designed to eliminate statutory rape for existing exceptions that permit a woman raped to obtain an abortion, my colleagues tried to resurrect the effort through Committee report language. 

The measure before us does absolutely nothing to previde women 

with the tools they need to get adequate prenatal care so that their 

babies—female, male, Black, White, Asian, Latin—can come into 

the world healthy, and so that both mother and child can thrive. 

That is what we are here, or supposed to be here, for. 

The measure before us, that we will hear from our distinguished 

witnesses, doesn’t do a thing to empower women to make these important life choices free from any family or community pressures 

that they may now face either to have an abortion or to carry the 

pregnancy to term, or to not have an abortion. Remember, the right 

to choose is not limited to the right to end the pregnancy but includes the right to become pregnant and the right to bring a 

healthy child into the world. And so we must support women regardless of their choices and give them the tools to exercise those 

choices. 

I can’t explain how the Chairman of this Committee feels about 

these real issues behind the bill, but I, as usual, always give him 

the benefit of the doubt. But the title really ought to be changed, 

and I will be talking with him about this after this hearing. 

This bill will not liberate or empower women but will further 

shackle them. This bill will not provide women with the ability to 

have a healthy child or have the tools necessary to raise that 

healthy child, well-educated, a full citizen of society, but this bill 

will, however, deprive women of their fundamental constitutional 

rights to personal and bodily autonomy. 

And so, we are all free to pursue our conscience, and I am sure 

we will seek clarity and understanding from the distinguished witnesses before us. And it is with that spirit and that openness of 

mind that I attend and join these hearings and welcome the witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentlemen. 

23 

At this time, other Members of the Subcommittee can be recognized for opening statements. And I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for an opening statement. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for having this hearing. And 

I want to thank you, also, for something else, and that is for focusing your introductory remarks on the issue at hand. 

Over and over again, we hear our friends from the other side, 

when it benefits them, saying, why aren’t we looking at the actual 

provisions of the law? But we always have the same type of comments that come out. 

First of all, we see the comment about, we just don’t like the 

name of the bill. Well, I remember when we passed the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act, many of us felt that that had 

nothing to do with patient protection. In fact, we hear from our clients over and over again how they feel it is hurting them and it 

is costing them more money. But that was the name. We would 

rather focus and debate the matters at hand on the bill. 

Then we talk about all the red herrings about what this bill does 

not do. Because if we can’t deal with the subject matter here— 

which is, when you focus it down, how does anybody really justify 

the sex selection or race selection for doing an abortion? And you 

can’t. So what you talk about is all the things that the bill won’t 

do. 

And then the third thing we see, Mr. Chairman, is we love to 

talk about, look at all the things that proponents or people who 

might have been proponents, like the former Chairman, might have 

done on something else, because it gets us away from the focus of 

this bill. 

And then, after we have said that, despite the fact of just delineating all the atrocities that will occur if the bill becomes law, we 

say the bill really won’t do anything anyway. 

And, Mr. Chairman, what I appreciate you doing is bringing this 

hearing so we can actually focus on the provisions of the bill and 

we can argue one issue, which is what is this bill says: Is it permissible, should it be policy this of this country, that we allow for sexselection or race-selection abortions? And that is what is before us 

today. 

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing. And I 

hope that is what ultimately our focus will be on. 

And, with that, I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I certainly thank the gentleman. And that is, 

indeed, our hope. 

I would like to recognize now Mr. Quigley for an opening statement. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before we begin today’s discussion, I want to make sure we are 

clear on an important point: Race- and gender-based abortions are 

two distinct issues and should be addressed as such. 

On the issue of the supposed race-based abortions, the entire 

premise of the bill is wrongheaded. I must assume that the writers 

of the bill don’t mean to imply that women of color would choose 

abortion as some sort of self-afflicted genocide. Abortion rates are 

24 

higher among Black women because Black women face unintended 

pregnancies at a rate much higher than the general population. 

And the reasons for these unintended pregnancies that have led to 

abortions are a lack of contraception access and proper use, according to a 2008 Guttmacher Institute report. 

So if the proponents of this bill truly want to help minority 

women, they would support Title X funding for family-planning 

clinics like Planned Parenthood, comprehensive sex education, and 

the myriad of preventive health benefits such as free birth control 

and health-care reform. But they don’t, which should tell us something about their true motivations behind the bill. 

As for sex-selective abortions, I agree with this bill’s proponents 

that abortions based on gender are a problem around the world. I 

agree that we must take action to stop these abusive practices both 

at home and around the world. 

But here is where my agreement with the proponents of the bill 

stops. I haartily disagree with this remedy for this serious problem. 

First, criminalizing such practices simply will not work. Banning 

sex-selective abortions has already been tried in various countries 

around the world, and what expert agencies, such as the World 

Health Organization, which operate in these countries have found 

is that, rather than preventing such abortions, bans simply result, 

‘‘in a greater demand for clandestine procedures, which fall outside 

regulations, protocols, monitoring, and basic safety.’’ In other 

words, rather than preventing abortions, which is what you want 

to do, such restrictions serve only to drive them underground, making them less safe. Our own history shores up this point, as well. 

Second, criminalization of sex-selective abortions would force 

physicians to question women about their reasons for seeking an 

abortion and would likely compel physicians to target certain 

groups of women from cultural groups where sex selection is more 

prevalent. To avoid liability, physicians may even cease providing 

such care to entire groups of women simply because of their race. 

This bill would promote the very racial discrimination it purports 

to combat. 

Additionally, targeting such motivations in practice would be 

nearly impossible. According to an analysis by the World Health 

Organization and four other U.N. agencies, ‘‘Prosecuting offenders 

is practically impossible,’’ and ‘‘Proving that a particular abortion 

was sex-selective is equally difficult.’’ 

These expert international organizations do, however, offer a viable solution to address sex-selection abortions, a solution 

unmentioned in H.R. 3541: Address the root causes of son preference. 

The United Nations, through its work in nations where sex selection is prevalent, has stated that the most effective way to address 

son preference is by fighting the root economic, social, and cultural 

causes of sex inequality. For instance, South Korea successfully 

lowered its male-female ratio from 116 boys for every 100 girls in 

the 1990’s to the 107 boys per 100 girls in 2007 by passing laws 

to improve the legal status of women and by implementing a public 

education campaign emphasizing the importance of women. 

So if the supporters of this bill are truly interested in preventing 

sex-selective abortions, I would like to invite them to join us in 

25 

supporting measures that will address the root causes of such abortions and empower women. Such measures include, but are not 

limited to, the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act, the 

Paycheck Fairness Act, and the Violence Against Women Act. 

Sadly, I fear that supporters of H.R. 3541 will not champion 

these bills, because their true motivation behind this bill is not 

equal rights but, rather, a restriction of women’s rights. This bill 

is a wolf in sheep’s clothing which distorts the language of civil 

rights in order to further an ongoing attack on women’s rights. 

So I urge my colleagues not to be fooled by the rhetoric of this 

bill and to instead work together to pass measures that will empower women both at home and around the world. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. 

And I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, 

Mr. Pence, for an opening statement. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you. 

I want to thank the Chairman for calling this hearing and for his 

unwavering leadership on this issue broadly. Those of us who have 

had the privilege of serving for a number of years with Congressman Franks know that he has been an eloquent and persistent advocate of the sanctity of life. And that is evidenced very clearly by 

his authoring the bill that is before us today. 

I believe that ending an innocent human life is morally wrong, 

an abortion. But I also believe it would be morally wrong for American law to remain silent when that act is motivated by discrimination based on race or gender. I am a strong supporter and cosponsor of H.R. 3541, the ‘‘Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass 

Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011,’’ authored by this Chairman. And let us be clear on this point: I believe that abortion is 

heartbreaking in any circumstance, but it is particularly so when 

a child is aborted on the basis of race or gender. 

The legislation before us today, commonly referred to as 

‘‘PRENDA,’’ would explicitly prohibit the coercion of either a sexselection or race-selection abortion, as well as the solicitation or acceptance of funds for performing either procedure. It would also 

prohibit the transportation of women into the country or across 

State lines for the purpose of obtaining a sex-selection or race-selection abortion. 

Notably, the pregnant woman is explicitly protected in this legislation from any penalties. However, those who coerce or facilitate 

an abortion on the basis of race or gender would be subject to all 

penalties under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Now, having glanced a bit at summaries of the testimony we will 

hear today, I know that there will be arguments made from this 

side of the panel and that, that this legislation is unnecessary or 

even frivolous. But I have to say, Mr. Chairman, the facts suggest 

otherwise. 

Today, an African American unborn baby is five times as likely 

to be aborted as a White baby. And abortion, according to the 

Guttmacher Institute, I say with a heavy heart, abortion is now the 

26 

leading cause of death in the Black community, with more than 

450,000 Black abortions per year. More African Americans are lost 

to abortion annually than are lost to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, AIDS, and violence combined. According to a 2008 report by 

the Guttmacher Institute, a Black baby, as I mentioned, is five 

times as likely to be aborted, and at least 42 percent of Black babies are aborted in this country every year. 

The facts cry out for action. And that is action that this Nation 

and this Congress take a step one more time toward a more perfect 

union. 

And over the course of our history, America has had anything 

but a perfect record on protecting civil rights. But we have ever 

strived toward that more perfect Union, ending the injustice of 

slavery through war and national travail, granting civil rights to 

women and minorities. And now I believe it is time for us to take 

the next step and extend those protections against discrimination 

within the womb itself in our march toward a more perfect Union. 

One last note, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the most compelling fact 

before this Committee today should be the realization that, while 

the United States has been on the record for some time condemning sex-selection abortion around the planet, our own laws 

are silent on the issue of sex- and race-selection abortion. Thanks 

to your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and I hope with the bipartisan 

support of Members of Congress, we will change that and we will 

see the laws of this Nation reflect our Nation’s deep commitment 

to civil rights for the born and the unborn. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Scott, do you have an opening statement, sir? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just briefly say that I would hope we would be looking 

at a number of initiatives that would actually reduce the need for 

abortions, including health care, education, job training, and adoptions. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir. 

I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, Mr. 

King, for an opening statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you personally and 

professionally and from the bottom of the hearts of my constituents 

for holding this hearing today and bringing forward this piece of 

legislation. 

I thank the witnesses in advance. I very much look forward to 

your testimony. 

I hear that phrase, ‘‘women and minorities.’’ It comes through 

this legislation over and over again. If I had thought ahead, I 

would have done a search through the Federal Code to see how 

many times women and minorities are specifically protected in Federal law. It is over and over again. Dozens and dozens of times, this 

Congress, the voice the American people, have specifically defined 

women and minorities as being the very categories worthy of special protection, because, throughout the history of civilization, 

women and minorities have found themselves at a disadvantage 

and found themselves often the targets of some type of annihilation. 

27 

And I find it ironic to hear the Ranking Member of the full Committee’s opening statement on this. When I go back and look at the 

14th Amendment of the Constitution, ‘‘nor deny to any person the 

equal protection of the laws.’’ When this Congress goes to such 

great lengths to specifically protect women and minorities, and the 

bill that is named after Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony, 

it is very clear. The two people that are icons, that have done a 

great deal, and perhaps the most in each of their categories, for the 

rights and protection of minorities—Frederick Douglass, completely 

eloquent, and Susan B. Anthony—I don’t think there is any question about why their names are in the title of this bill. 

And I sit here and I listen and I think, what if I had advocated 

for a policy that would put 80 percent of the abortion clinics in the 

inner city, in the heart of the minority areas in this country, that 

resulted in half of the African American pregnancies becoming 

aborted or a high percentage of Hispanic pregnancies becoming 

aborted, if I advocated for such a policy, let alone a publicly funded 

policy, you all know what I would be called for such a thing. I oppose those policies. 

And this bill defines a way that we can protect the innocent, unborn human lives that are targeted because of a bias against race 

and a bias against—we are calling it ‘‘sex’’ now, aren’t we, instead 

of ‘‘gender.’’ Why is that? It is because the definition of ‘‘gender’’ 

is what you think you are, and the definition of ‘‘sex’’ is what anybody can observe, any physician can observe, any layperson can figure out you are. Do you know why we use the term ‘‘sex’’ instead 

of ‘‘gender’’ with an unborn baby? Because they haven’t had a 

chance to have a voice. They haven’t said, ‘‘Here is my gender.’’ So 

we identify them by ‘‘sex.’’ That is the only way I know in this public policy anymore that we discuss ‘‘sex’’ as opposed to ‘‘gender.’’ 

They don’t have a voice for themselves. 

And so we would have a discussion here about how we are somehow biased bringing forward to protect unborn human lives that 

are targeted because of race and gender, and that we should instead address the root causes of this being in the culture rather 

than put in law. Well, some will say you can’t legislate morality, 

but the law is a reflection of our morality. It is the defined moral 

code of the United States of America. And that morality that is defined here by this Congress is a reflection of the culture and the 

people. And it is a restraint, and it is a guideline. And it does put 

a stigma in place, and it does advise the American people, who 

don’t agree, that there is a strong majority position that protects 

the innocent, unborn lives especially of women and minorities. 

From my standpoint, I wanted to take a lot of that special protection language out of there for the born people, because I think, to 

a large degree, it has served a successful purpose, and most people 

now do have something much closer to equal opportunity today 

than existed when I was a young man growing up. But here is 

where I say we need to continue to make the case. They don’t have 

a voice for themselves. They never had the opportunity to breathe 

free air, never had the opportunity to go out and be successful, 

never had the opportunity to love or live or laugh or study or work 

or play or contribute to this country. 

28 

And I think that positions taken on the other side that say, ‘‘We 

can’t criminalize it because it will just drive it underground,’’ is a 

modern version of the coat-hanger argument. Yes, we can. We protect innocent, unborn human lives. 

We need to have this discussion and this debate. The 14th 

Amendment says, ‘‘nor deny to any person the equal protection of 

the laws.’’ And we will get to the point of what a person is in this 

discussion, in this debate. We need to protect and define a person 

in law. That is a constitutional protection. The only reason we 

allow abortion in this country and the way that we do elective 

abortion is because we have not defined personhood. 

I would point out also that there is an industry in this country 

that is establishing sex selection in industry and advertising now 

worldwide and taking the claim that they are 100 percent efficient 

in identifying the sex, not the gender, of the unborn baby. And that 

is bringing about some 37 million more boys in China than there 

are girls in China. That is just one country. This is global. This is 

America, with a moral standard. 

I thank the Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. 

And we will now hear the opening statement of Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to 

especially thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today and 

his leadership in pushing the passage of this much-needed legislation. 

Throughout the past several decades, our country has struggled 

to eliminate gender discrimination in our schools, in the courtrooms, in the workplace. Today, we face these types of discrimination in abortion procedures. These abortions not only terminate life, 

they also yield irreparable harm on the future of our Nation’s diversity. 

The harm goes beyond the performance of the abortions themselves; many of the women who have these abortions are abused 

and coerced into the procedure. A 2011 study by the University 

California at San Francisco interviewed Indian American women in 

California, New York, and New Jersey who had sought sex-selection abortions between the years 2004 and 2009. Nearly half of the 

participants had already had a sex-selection abortion, with some 

having as many as four sex-selection abortions. The women in this 

study talk about the forms of abuse and coercion they faced during 

that time. 

When these Indian American women were asked why they 

sought sex selections, they often described the suffering of female 

relatives who had not given birth to sons. The pressure takes the 

form of social stigma and a lack of economic support and respectability, stability, et cetera. These concerns were found to be consistent among all socioeconomic levels, even among the 23 percent 

that held advanced degrees in medicine and law and scientific research. 

In this study, women also frequently discussed instances where 

their husbands were abusive because they were bearing a female 

baby. Some husbands even reportedly withheld food and water 

from their wives. Some hit, punched, choked, and kicked the 

29 

women in the abdomen, attempting to forcibly terminate the pregnancy. 

A growing body of research now documents the relationship between intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion, sometimes resulting in forced sex and denial of health-care services if 

pregnant. One-third of the women in this study reported that family violence was exacerbated when they did not give birth to a son. 

As a result, many of these women tragically faced psychological 

and physical morbidity. 

What I find most heartbreaking is that many of these women expressed guilt, shame, and sadness over their inability to save the 

daughters that had been aborted. These women should not have to 

stand alone to save their daughters. It is time that we stand alongside them to protect life. And that is exactly what this bill will do. 

A courageous woman of her time, Susan B. Anthony, said, ‘‘It 

was we, the people, not we, the White male citizens, nor yet we, 

the male citizens, but we, the whole people, who formed the 

Union.’’ I believe the sanctity of life, all life, is precious and should 

be protected. We must firmly challenge these new discriminatory 

practices and stand for children of all races and genders, for it is 

this very diversity of race and gender that makes America great. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chabot, especially for quoting 

Susan B. Anthony. That was very appropriate. Thank you, sir. 

And we have no other opening statements on this side, so, Mr. 

Jordan, I will recognize you, sir, for an opening statement. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the Chairman. 

I will just be brief, with just a couple thank you’s. I, too, want 

to thank the Chairman, not just for this legislation, but for your 

commitment to protecting the sanctity of human life and highlighting this issue throughout your career. We truly appreciate that 

leadership and that hard work that you have done so well on this 

most fundamental of issues. 

And, secondly, I just want to take a moment to thank the millions of pro-life people who, every single day, do things that they 

never get credit for, who sit down and counsel a teenager, who take 

baby supplies, who take clothes to the local crisis pregnancy center, 

who will take in unwed mothers in a difficult time. I want to thank 

all those people. They are the ones who make such a difference in 

advancing and protecting life. 

This issue is going to highlight something that is terrible that is 

going on, but it is those people across this country who truly make 

a difference day-in and day-out. And I want to take just a few minutes and thank them again for their tireless efforts to recognize 

what the Founders understood, that all life is precious and it truly 

is a gift from God. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity and for 

this hearing. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. 

And, without objection, other Members’ opening statements will 

be made a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

30 


71599AA-1.eps
31 


71599AA-2.eps
32 

Mr. FRANKS. And, with unanimous consent, I would like to submit for the record the December 5, 2011, statement of Dr. Day 

Gardner on behalf of the National Black Pro-Life Union, addressed 

to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. 

Without objection. 

[The material referred to follows:] 


71599A-1.eps
33 

Mr. FRANKS. With unanimous consent, I would like to submit for 

the record the statement of Dr. Alveda King, director of African 

American outreach for Priests for Life, on the reintroduction of the 

Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act. 

Without objection. 

[The material referred to follows:] 


71599A-2.eps
34 

Mr. FRANKS. Also, without objection, I would like to submit for 

the record the December 6, 2011, statement of Ms. Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America. 

[The material referred to follows:] 


71599B.eps
35 

Mr. FRANKS. Also, the June 24, 2011, Wall Street Journal article, 

‘‘The War Against Girls,’’ by Mr. Jonathan Last. 

[The material referred to follows:] 


71599C.eps
36 


71599D-1.eps
37 


71599D-2.eps
38 


71599D-3.eps
39 


71599D-4.eps
40 

Mr. FRANKS. And then, finally, I would like to submit for the 

record the June 26, 2011, New York Times article, ‘‘160 Million and 

Counting,’’ by Mr. Ross Douthat. 

Without objection. 

[The material referred to follows:] 


71599E-1.eps
41 


71599E-2.eps
42 

Mr. FRANKS. Our first witnesses—thank you all for being here 

today. I am going read a little bit about you, and then we will— 

our first witness is Steven Aden. He serves as senior legal counsel 

at the Alliance Defense Fund, home to the country’s most successful constitutional lawyers litigating the most significant Federal 

cases that threaten America’s religious freedom and the sanctity of 

human life, with a near-75-percent win rate. 

I might need a lawyer here. 


71599E-3.eps
43 

He is a member of the bars of the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous Federal courts. He has earned a J.D. From Georgetown 

University Law Center. 

And thank you for being here with us, Mr. Aden. 

Our second witness, Mr. Edwin Black, is a New York Times bestselling international investigative author of 80 award-winning editions in 14 languages, in 65 countries, with more than a million 

books in print. His book, ‘‘War Against the Weak: Eugenics and 

America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race,’’ met wide acclaim 

from Mother Jones, the National Review, and the New York Times 

Book Review, which described his book as, ‘‘chilling in its exposure 

of the shameless racism, class prejudice, and cruelty of eugenic attitudes and practices in the United States.’’ Mr. Black is the child 

of Holocaust survivors. 

Our third witness, Miriam Yeung, is executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, where she guides 

the country’s only national multi-issue progressive organization 

dedicated to social justice and human rights for Asian and Pacific 

Islander women and girls in the United States. Current priorities 

include winning rights for immigrant women, organizing nail salon 

workers for safer working conditions, conducting community-based 

participatory research with young API women, and ending human 

trafficking. 

Our fourth and final witness, Steven Mosher, is an internationally recognized authority on China and population issues as well as 

an acclaimed author and speaker. In 1979, Mr. Mosher became the 

first American social scientist to work in mainland China on invitation by the Chinese Government, where he had access to government documents and actually witnessed women being forced to 

have abortions under the then-new one-child policy. Mr. Mosher 

was a pro-choice atheist at the time, but witnessing these traumatic abortions led him to reconsider his convictions and eventually become a practicing pro-life Roman Catholic. 

Each of the witnesses’ statements will be entered into the record 

in its entirety, and I would ask each of the witnesses to summarize 

his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. 

And to help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on 

your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you will 

have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns 

red, it signals that the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

Now, before I recognize the witnesses, it is the tradition of this 

Subcommittee that they be sworn. So if you would please stand to 

be sworn. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. FRANKS. Please be seated. Thank you. 

I would now recognize our first witness, Mr. Aden, for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN H. ADEN, VICE PRESIDENT/SENIOR 

COUNSEL, HUMAN LIFE ISSUES, ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND 

Mr. ADEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conyers, Members of 

the Subcommittee. I am deeply privileged to have been asked by 

the Subcommittee to testify today regarding the constitutionality of 

this bill. 

44 

The bill would prohibit the practice of abortion committed by reason of the gender or race of the pre-born patient. Gender and the 

physical qualities that are construed as race are immutable human 

genetic qualities that exist at conception, like the innumerable 

characteristics that are woven together in the womb to create each 

unique member of the human species. 

Federal and State laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of 

gender and race in housing, employment, education, lodging, commercial transactions, and a host of other contexts. Human life in 

the womb is recognized and protected by the laws of many, if not 

most, of the United States against crimes of violence. 

In 2007, the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Commission on Status 

of Women advocated for a resolution condemning sex-selection 

abortion. The Secretary of State has also spoken out against the 

practice. The U.S. Congress has passed multiple resolutions condemning the People’s Republic of China for its failure to end sexselection abortion. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has likewise condemned the practice. 

In the case of racial-selection abortion, it is no exaggeration to 

say that the African American population of the United States has 

been decimated by the widespread availability of abortion on demand in the last 40 years, and particularly by the placement of 

abortion providers in predominantly minority population centers. 

CDC data for 2007 shows that in the 25 reporting areas that reported cross-classified race and ethnicity data, non-Hispanic Black 

women had the highest abortion ratios, at 480 abortions per 1,000 

live births. Non-Hispanic Black women accounted for nearly as 

many abortions proportionately, 34.4 percent, as non-Hispanic 

White women, at 37.1 percent. 

Commenting on this trend, The Washington Post observed that, 

in the past 30 years, more mothers of color are opting to abort and 

that, in 2004, there were 50 abortions per 1,000 Black women, compared with 10.5 per 1,000 White women. In other words, African 

American infants were five times more likely to be aborted than 

White infants. These are grave statistics for the African American 

population. Tragically, the CDC observes that, ‘‘Abortion provides 

a proxy measure for the number of pregnancies that are unwanted.’’ 

Pursuant to Congress’ authority to eradicate all badges of slavery 

and eliminate all barriers to gender equality based on invidious, archaic, and overbroad stereotypes, this bill would prohibit the knowing commitment of abortion based on the sex, gender, color, or race 

of the child or the child’s parent. The bill also prohibits the use or 

threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for 

the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion 

and the solicitation or acceptance of funds for the purpose of financing such an abortion. 

Congress has broad powers under the Commerce Clause to enact 

the legislation at hand in furtherance of the rights of equality secured by the 14th Amendment. As the Supreme Court stated in the 

United States v. Lopez, ‘‘We have upheld a wide variety of congressional acts regulating intrastate economic activity where we have 

concluded that the activity substantially affected interstate commerce.’’ 

45 

Nor does the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence require a 

different result. Although the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey recognized the essential holding of the Court in Roe 

v. Wade, that women possess the right to obtain an abortion without undue interference from the State before viability, that holding, 

Casey clarified, was based on the Court’s perception that the 

State’s interests weren’t strong enough to support a prohibition at 

that stage. 

However, the Supreme Court has made it clear in numerous 

cases that States have a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination against women and minorities. Moreover, the Casey 

Court also affirmed the principle that, ‘‘The State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health 

of the woman and the life of the fetus.’’ 

Nor is the absence of a medical necessity or health exception in 

this bill a constitutional infirmity. By definition, abortions conducted because of the sex or race of the infant are elective procedures that do not implicate the health of the maternal patient. The 

act clarifies that the mother may not be prosecuted or held civilly 

liable under the act. Thus, the private right of action provisions 

strike only at the commercial activity of providing abortion, which 

clearly substantially impacts interstate commerce. The debarment 

provision is to the same effect. As the Supreme Court has declared, 

‘‘It is beyond dispute that any public entity, State or Federal, has 

a compelling interest in assuring that public dollars drawn from 

the tax contributions of all citizens do not serve to finance the evil 

of private prejudice.’’ 

In conclusion, H.R. 3541 is conceived and drafted pursuant to 

sound constitutional authority and the best tradition of this Nation’s commitment to civil rights and equality for all of its citizens. 

Thank you again for the privilege of appearing before this Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aden follows:] 

46 


Aden-1.eps
47 


Aden-2.eps
48 


Aden-3.eps
49 


Aden-4.eps
50 


Aden-5.eps
51 


Aden-6.eps
52 


Aden-7.eps
53 

Mr. FRANKS. And thank you, Mr. Aden, very much. 

Mr. Black, you are recognized for about 5 minutes. And thank 

you, sir, for being here. 


Aden-8.eps
54 

TESTIMONY OF EDWIN BLACK, AUTHOR AND HISTORIAN, 

THE FEATURE GROUP 

Mr. BLACK. Thank you very much for having me, Chairman 

Franks and the other distinguished Representatives. I was very 

moved by all these remarks, but I was especially moved by yours 

about the young child who was playing piano. I have had many 

similar feelings. 

So my name is Edwin Black, and I am here not as a Democrat 

or a Republican or in favor of the bill or opposed to the bill, but 

to give historical context to the discussion you are having now. I 

am an expert on eugenics, and I have come here to explain how 

America began the concept of the White master race some 30 years 

before Adolf Hitler and, in doing so, institutionalized through the 

rule of law the concept of race selection and gender selection—in 

fact, these words were deliberately used by them—as a context to 

Darwin in natural selection. 

So, basically, it all began, more or less—to condense this into the 

3 minutes and 34 seconds I have left—it all began at the beginning 

of the 20th century, when millions of Jews and Eastern Europeans 

were coming in from the east coast, the Chinese laborers were coming in from the west coast. Mexicans were now abundantly in the 

United States in the Southwest as a result of the Treaty of Hidalgo, which means half of Mexico became the United States’ property. The Blacks were off the plantation; the Indians were off the 

reservation. The agrarian society was moving to a cosmopolitan industrial society, and there was a huge dislocation in the United 

States in terms of socio-ethnic and economic texture. 

The men in power at that time decided that they wanted to turn 

back the clock and they wanted to improve society. And they 

thought that you were not born into prostitution, they thought that 

prostitution was a genetic trait; that you were not born into poverty, that poverty was actually born into you. And so they decided 

to get rid of poverty and to get rid of the social problems by subtracting the very people who they assumed were responsible. These 

were the do-gooders, the liberals, the progressives, who decided to 

subtract 10 percent of the American population at a swipe. At that 

time, it was 14 million people. 

And the methods that they proposed included gas chambers. The 

first euthanasia law was entered into Iowa in 1906. When these euthanasia laws were not put forward, they went to coercive sterilization, they went to marriage voiding, marriage prohibition. Marriage 

prohibition between the races was not decriminalized until the 

1960’s, Loving v. Virginia. And, ultimately, some 27,000 individuals 

in this country, under the rule of law sanctified by the Supreme 

Court, were coercively sterilized, mainly women, mainly without 

knowing what was happening. 

And, therefore, when I speak to you, I speak to you about the 

never-born, about the millions of people who have been subtracted 

from our society. This always was genocide. It is genocide today, legally. And now there is a move—and I am only here for the eugenics side of this—to replicate this type of social engineering in the 

United States by using advanced medicine. 

We all know that there are multi-millions of gendercide around 

the world, especially in certain cultures where son preference rules. 

55 

The statistics have been given by these individuals. The method of 

population and social engineering there was murder. They would 

take the kid, they would put him in a pail; they would take the kid, 

they would throw him in the river. In Chicago, they did it by leaving children unattended in the surgical suite. It was done time and 

time again. 

Now we have the powers of observation, we have the powers of 

measurement, we have the power to foresee into the future. We 

don’t have to wait for the first moments of life to murder an innocent. We can do it beforehand by techniques. 

My interest is only in the effort to manipulate society in favor 

of one gender or one race or to de-emphasize the existence of these 

people. There is a huge move afoot in this country to design babies, 

to design societies, and to create a new master race. Everyone can 

see it on the Internet. It is the greatest minds and the greatest 

moneys that want to get this done. 

So this is the context, the historical context. 

I am out of time. Thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:] 

56 


Black-1.eps
57 


Black-2.eps
58 


Black-3.eps
59 


Black-4.eps
60 


Black-5.eps
61 


Black-6.eps
62 


Black-7.eps
63 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Black. Thank you very much, sir. 

And, Mrs. Yeung, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MIRIAM W. YEUNG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN’S FORUM 

Ms. YEUNG. Thank you all for having me here today. 

My name is Miriam Yeung, and I am the executive director of 

the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum. We are the 

country’s only multi-issue organization dedicated to building a 

movement for social justice and human rights for Asian and Pacific 


Black-8.eps
64 

Islander women and girls in the United States. I am also a Chinese 

immigrant from Hong Kong and the proud mother of two wonderful 

daughters, who are doing a very good job of staying quiet. 

On behalf of NAPAWF and the dozen of women’s rights, Asian 

American and Pacific Islander, human rights, civil rights, and reproductive groups that stand with me, I strongly urge the Members 

of this Congress to oppose H.R. 3541, otherwise as known as 

‘‘PRENDA.’’ 

Forgive ME for allowing my Brooklyn roots to show just a little 

bit when I say, ‘‘PRENDA is nothing but a pretenda.’’ PRENDA 

pretends to fight against racial discrimination by actually perpetuating discrimination against women of color. This bill undermines 

and calls into question our ability as women of color to make decisions about our own bodies. 

The truth is, most Americans believe that a woman knows what 

is best for her and her family. But this bill places unfair scrutiny 

on African American and Asian American women around our motives for seeking abortion care. This scrutiny promotes racial 

profiling by pushing doctors to assume African American and Asian 

American women are seeking abortions because of the race or sex 

of their fetus. 

Women of color already face difficulty accessing health care and 

have poorer health outcomes. African American women are three 

to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than 

White women, and their unintended pregnancy rate is almost twice 

that of White women. Vietnamese women are more than five times 

as likely to die from cervical cancer, and Korean women have the 

highest uninsurance rates of any ethnic or racial group. Unfortunately, this measure would make health-care outcomes for women 

of color even worse. Making abortion harder to obtain exacerbates 

racial disparities in health care. 

PRENDA pretends to speak the language of women’s equality, 

but, unfortunately, the voting records of its supporters do not 

strengthen civil rights, women’s rights, or the rights of Asian 

Americans and Pacific Islanders. For example, this year alone, 

sponsors voted to de-fund family planning, eliminate funding for 

the United Nations Population Fund, ban abortion coverage in 

State health insurance exchanges, and allow providers to refuse 

abortion care even when a woman’s life is in danger. Sponsors of 

this bill did not support the Children’s Health Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act. And some would even require hospitals to report possible undocumented persons that seek treatment, thus preventing immigrants from seeking emergency health care. 

PRENDA pretends to address the issue of sex selection but does 

nothing to address the root causes of son preference or gender inequity. Son preference is a symptom of deeply rooted social biases 

and stereotypes about gender. Gender inequity cannot be solved by 

banning abortion. In fact, the United Nations Population Fund, the 

World Health Organization, the Office of the High Commissioner 

for Human Rights, UNICEF, and U.N. Women have issued a clear 

joint statement that countries have an obligation to ensure that 

these injustices, meaning son preference, are addressed without exposing women to the risk of death or serious injury by denying 

them access to needed services such as safe abortion. 

65 

Asian American and Pacific Islander women know that gender 

inequities do exist and are working in culturally competent ways 

to provide long-term, sustainable solutions. We are working with 

members of our own community to empower women and girls, 

thereby challenging norms and transforming values. For example, 

we are carrying out programs that build the leadership of women, 

improve our economic standing, create better access to health care, 

and end gender-based violence against us. 

We need your support to put Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders back to work, since our community experiences the longest duration of unemployment of all races and ethnicities. We need your 

support on current bills such as the reauthorization of the Violence 

Against Woman Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the 

Health Equity and Accountability Act. We need humane immigration reform and many other policy efforts which would help my 

community. 

In summary, PRENDA pretends to eliminate racial and gender 

discrimination but is a thinly veiled attempt to limit abortion access for women of color. Instead of curbing women’s rights and exacerbating racial discrimination, I welcome all Members of Congress to work with NAPAWF and all other organizations that stand 

with me to pass legislation that truly results in racial justice and 

gender equality. Let’s really work together to improve the lives of 

women of color and to make this country a better place for daughters like mine. But let’s not continue to pretend that this bill does 

that. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Yeung follows:] 

66 


Yeung-1.eps
67 


Yeung-2.eps
68 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Yeung. 

Mr. Mosher, you are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes. 


Yeung-3.eps
69 

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN W. MOSHER, PRESIDENT, 

POPULATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

Mr. MOSHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. 

Nearly 9 out of 10 Americans oppose abortion for reasons of sex 

selection, but such acts of gender violence are neither illegal nor 

uncommon in our country. Permissive abortion laws and high resolution ultrasounds make it easier than ever for parents to target 

and eliminate unwanted daughters before birth. 

Now, I have followed the issue of sex-selective abortion for a long 

time. I was the first American social scientist in China in 1979- 

1980 during the beginning of the one child policy. I documented 

sex-selective infanticide in the Pearl River Delta, the killing of little girls after birth by their parents, who were under terrible pressure by the government to end over-quota pregnancies. 

I also testified before the Australian Senate in 1986 against shipping ultrasound machines to China because I argued they would be 

used overwhelmingly to detect the sex of unborn children and that 

girls would be targeted for elimination; 37 million baby girls in 

China have perished in this way. So this is an issue of concern to 

me for a long time. 

You know, until the recent spate of negative publicity focused 

public attention on these crimes, it was not unusual to find abortionists advertising the availability of sex-selective abortions in 

newspapers like The New York Times. Now, anyone who has lived 

in the Asian American community, as I have, is aware that the 

practice of selectively aborting female fetuses is disturbingly common. Women, as well as their daughters, are both victimized. 

Now, Congressman Chabot has already mentioned the study, the 

very gripping and disturbing study by Sunita Puri, an Asian American physician, but it is worth mentioning again because she actually interviewed 65 immigrant Indian women who had pursued 

fetal sex selection. She found that 89 percent of the women carrying girls aborted during the study. That is to say almost all of 

the women when they found out they were carrying girls went in 

and ended the lives of their unborn baby girls. She found that 

nearly half had previously aborted girls. 

And she found something else. She found evidence of gender violence. These women told Dr. Puri that they had been, by their husbands or in-laws, they had been shoved around, kicked in the abdomen, denied food, water and rest in an attempt to make them miscarry the girls they were carrying. Even the women who were carrying boys told of their guilt over past sex-selection abortions, the 

feeling of being unable to save their daughters. 

So these episodes are not isolated tragedies. These are common 

occurrences in some American communities. We have two studies 

now by economists which document son-biased sex ratios. I don’t 

have time to go into the details. 

But the one point that jumped out at me was this: Whether a 

mother in some of these communities gave birth to a boy could not 

be predicted by her immigration status alone. In fact, mothers who 

are U.S. citizens were slightly more likely to have sons than those 

who were immigrants. This means that sex selection is not a tradition from the old country that easily dies out. The enduring nature 

70 

of sex-selection abortion further underlines the need for the kind 

of legislative remedy that PRENDA offers. 

Those who argue against sex and race selective abortions do so 

on the grounds that sex-selective abortion is not really a problem 

here. In fact, Maria Hvistendahl, who wrote a book about this, 

writes, ‘‘the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act is not such a bad law 

were it to be enacted in the countries that actually need it.’’ 

The implication here is that the United States doesn’t need it. I 

disagree. While it is difficult to say with any exactitude how many 

sex-selection abortions take place in the U.S. Each year, the number is not trivial. Consider that we are talking about communities 

consisting of 3.9 million Chinese Americans, 2.8 million Indian 

Asians—Asian Indians, 1.6 million Korean Americans, the highly 

skewed sex ratios found in census surveys suggest among these 

groups alone, that tens of thousands of unborn girls have been 

eliminated, for no other reason than they are considered by some 

to be the wrong sex. 

I disagree with Hvistendahl that the death of tens of thousands 

of American baby girls does not constitute a problem significant 

enough to be combated with legislation. Even one death is too 

many. 

Finally, this reasonable effort to rein in discriminatory abortions 

has been mischaracterized by some as ‘‘an attempt to restrict 

health care for women of color.’’ What this bill is really talking 

about is allowing Indian, Chinese, Korean American and other 

women the freedom to have babies of their own choosing. Isn’t that 

what reproductive choice is supposed to be all about: allowing 

women the freedom to have the babies of their own choosing. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mosher follows:] 

71 


Mosher-1.eps
72 


Mosher-2.eps
73 


Mosher-3.eps
74 


Mosher-4.eps
75 


Mosher-5.eps
76 


Mosher-6.eps
77 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Mosher. 

We will now begin the questions. I will recognize myself for 5 

minutes for questions, and I will direct my first question to you, 

Mr. Black. 

I keep trying to call you Dr. Black. I apologize, but you talk like 

an Ph.D. here, better than most of them, I will tell you. 


Mosher-7.eps
78 

Mr. Black, your testimony for me was so very compelling because 

you seemed to restate one of humanity’s oldest and perhaps most 

evil practices in ways that help us understand the consequences in 

real terms. I was particularly struck in your comments about the 

early eugenicists’ philosophy that it wasn’t advocated so much by 

the ‘‘activists of the day’’ that you might consider the uneducated 

masses, but these were the elite, the—I won’t say do-gooders of society—but the ones that considered themselves smarter than everybody else. And it frightens me a little bit, because I think we think 

that they weren’t very bright back then and how could they have 

fallen into that trap, but I wonder if sometimes today that we don’t 

do the same thing. 

So my question to you, at the risk of sounding redundant, would 

you capsulize again the eugenicist practices in this country in the 

20th century and what it led to in our country and outside our 

country and who were the primary movers and shakers behind it? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, it is important to understand that the genocidal actions of the American eugenicists were not conducted by 

men in white sheets burning crosses at midnight, but by men in 

white lab coats and in three-piece suits in the fine corridors of our 

great universities, in the State House, in the court house and in 

the medical society. This was all subject to the rule of law, and the 

law was put into place by the men in power to eliminate the existence of those they believed had no right to exist. 

You asked about the do-gooders. These were actually Utopians, 

and they believed that they could form a Utopia by cutting off 14 

million Americans at a time, at a slice, and eventually, there would 

be no one left except those who resembled themselves. Unfortunately, as I am sure the Members of the Committee know, the 

word ‘‘Utopia’’ in Greek means nowhere, and even the ancient 

Greeks knew that Utopia was unattainable. 

But in their effort to create a Utopia, they decided to corral and 

sterilize and stop the reproductive rights and incarcerate White 

people with brown hair from Appalachia, Hispanics, Jews coming 

in from the East, the Asians who had come in to work on the railroads. These people were turned into untermenschen, meaning subhumans, and this was pursuant to law in 27 States, and was 

upheld by the Supreme Court no less than Oliver Wendell Holmes, 

when he said three generations of imbeciles are enough. Now, the 

kids up there think that the words ‘‘imbecile,’’ ‘‘moron’’ and ‘‘idiot’’ 

are insults, but the adults up there, the older ones, know that 

these were scientific terms that were designed to measure intelligence and to stigmatize. 

What is important to understand is that while we invented this 

race policy and eugenics, we empowered it into Nazi Germany. It 

was decades of our funding of Nazi eugenics that caused Adolph 

Hitler to praise the United States eugenics policy in Mein Kampf, 

to write fan mail to the chair, to the board members of Margaret 

Sanger, to say, your work is my Bible, and to pursue American 

principles, laws, statutes, with tremendous ferocity and velocity. 

In fact, we are all in horror about what happened at Auschwitz 

with Mengele. What most people don’t understand is that 

Mengele’s twin research was in fact funded by the Rockefeller 

Foundation when they made his boss, Otmar Verschuer, their chief 

79 

researcher on the Rockefeller twin project. It was Adolf Hitler who 

said that national socialism is just biology in action. 

So we must understand that World War II was more than a war 

of economic plunder and territorial conquest. World War II was actually a genetic war backed up by a merciless military that sought 

to eliminate the existence of all those deemed to be socially unfit. 

Mr. FRANKS. I am going to ask unanimous consent for one more 

minute to just throw one quick other question at you. Can you explain how the American eugenics movement influenced the efforts 

of American population control or family planning movement so 

that the racial minorities were targeted for birth control, sterilizations and abortion? 

Mr. BLACK. During what period? 

Mr. FRANKS. It would be the—— 

Mr. BLACK. After the war or before the war? 

Mr. FRANKS. Before the war. 

Mr. BLACK. Oh, okay. Well, basically, they turned welfare upside 

down. They turned education upside down. The best way to give 

educational services was to train one of these social misfits to care 

for themselves and then spend their resources elsewhere. 

The welfare departments thought the best thing you could do for 

a socially unfit person was to deny their existence on the planet. 

And remember this, please: It was never about your education or 

your money, because these people, the American eugenicists, the 

great legislators, the great judges, the university presidents, the 

doctors, the scientists, from Alexander Graham Bell all the way to 

Oliver Wendell Holmes to the Chief Justice of the Chicago Municipal Court, they all felt that they were doing something good for 

the country. What they didn’t realize was that they were in fact 

committing genocide under Article II, Sub D, which specifically 

says in the Genocide Treaty that organized efforts to restrict births 

within a group constitutes genocide. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Black. 

I now recognize Mr. Conyers for 5 minutes for questioning. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Aden, do you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned? 

Mr. ADEN. Emphatically, yes, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. I heard you. I said thank you. 

Mr. ADEN. Yes, sir. I think that is a civil rights struggle of this 

generation. 

Mr. CONYERS. Hold it just a minute. You answered the question. 

Now, Mr. Mosher, do you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned? 

Mr. MOSHER. Yes, I do. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

You ask Mr. Black. I am not going to ask him anything. 

Mr. BLACK. Go ahead. What is your question? 

Mr. CONYERS. Ms. Yeung, I would like to talk with you for a 

minute about what I consider the most critical part of Roe v. Wade, 

and that is with respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in life, the compelling point is viability, because the fetus 

then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the 

mother’s womb, when you reach viability. So that means to me that 

80 

the Supreme Court has made clear in this case from 1973 that the 

government may not prohibit abortion prior to fetal viability. 

Would you comment on that part of the case for me, please? 

Ms. YEUNG. Thank you, Mr. Conyers, for the question. 

I will admit, firstly, that I am no legal scholar by any means, but 

I do know that there are many of my colleagues in the room who 

are from the Center for Reproductive Rights or the ACLU that 

have submitted comments and testimony, who can talk about the 

legal standing. 

I was actually more of a science person in my upbringing, and 

that may be a stereotype, but I actually was pretty good at math 

and science, and what I do know scientifically is that a fetus cannot live outside of a woman’s body before 24 weeks. 

Mr. CONYERS. That is not bad for a person without medical training or legal training. 

Let me ask you this, Ms. Yeung. In the communities where you 

work, what are some of the actual barriers to women’s comprehensive health care? 

Ms. YEUNG. Yes. I am really pleased that there is this hearing 

which focuses on the needs of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. We have always wanted this sort of support and attention, particularly, as many of us know, Asian Americans and Pacific islanders make up only 6 percent of the U.S. population, we often have 

to fight for our air time. And there is a huge need, of course, for 

disaggregated information about our community, so information 

that treats the different ethnicities as separate. 

So I am also pleased that this issue allows us to look at how— 

to look at different ethnic communities, particularly Chinese, Korean and Indian communities in this case. But we have really serious issues that the Asian Pacific Islander community have identified. As I mentioned in my testimony, we know that Asian American women, particularly Vietnamese women, suffer from cervical 

cancer at extraordinarily high rates. We have disproportionate 

rates of hepatitis B infection, which would require more attention. 

We know that Filipino women are at higher risk for breast cancer 

than Black or White women. 

We know also that Asian American and Pacific Islander young 

people are targets for school bullying at disproportionate rates and 

higher rates than other races and ethnicities. And when do you do 

look at disaggregated Asian Pacific Islander data, we see in many 

places that young API women and girls have lower self-esteem 

than their counterparts. And, as I mentioned before, we also have 

long-term unemployment to face. 

These are all issues that are real issues that I would submit and 

ask that the Congress really do help us address. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Do you believe that this bill would help women, would liberate 

them? I mean, after all, where we got the names of two great civil 

rights people I will never know, but do you think that this is going 

to help liberate women in their struggle? 

Ms. YEUNG. On the contrary, I believe that this bill would hurt 

women, and women of color in particular. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

81 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize Mr. Chabot for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the Chairman for his recognition. 

Ms. Yeung, it was mentioned—well, let me just make a couple 

of comments. 

First of all, I think Mr. Conyers, who I consider to be a friend, 

even though we don’t agree on a whole lot of issues, I still think 

he is a gentleman and a scholar, I just think he is very wrong on 

this particular issue. 

But I think asking some of the panel members relative to their 

position on Roe v. Wade, I think the implication is that they are 

somehow biased because they do believe that Roe v. Wade ought to 

be overturned. 

I strongly believe it ought to be overturned as well, particularly 

when you consider that there is about 50 million or so Americans 

who aren’t here because of that decision that happened on the 

day—my birthday actually is on January 22nd, 1973, and every 

day on my birthday, I think about how many—and we have nice 

thoughts, other than getting older, which isn’t necessarily all that 

great, but I think of all those who never experienced life, the opportunities that I have had and our kids have had and many other 

people have had because of that decision. Fifty million Americans 

aren’t here, don’t exist, because of that decision. So there is an 

awful lot of us that think that that was a horrific decision. 

And I happen to be the principal sponsor of the ban on partial 

birth abortion, which was originally Stenberg v. Carhart and then 

Gonzales v. Carhart, which was upheld by a 5-4 decision in the 

U.S. Supreme Court. 

I guess, Mr. Aden, I would like to ask you that question if I could 

to begin with. 

In the light of that particular decision, are you confident that 

this legislation, should we be able to pass it in the House and the 

Senate and get it beyond this President’s veto, because I am sure— 

well, I can’t say I am sure he would veto it, but assuming he would 

veto it, we probably wouldn’t have the two-thirds to override the 

veto. 

But if we got it there to the Supreme Court, do you feel confident 

on a legal basis that this would be upheld? 

Mr. ADEN. Yes, I am confident of that. 

Mr. Conyers asked about Roe v. Wade. As I quoted earlier, the 

Supreme Court in Roe affirmed the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting 

the life the fetus. It reaffirmed that principle recently in Gonzales 

v. Carhart. In point of fact, the partial birth abortion procedure, as you probably know, was not restricted to post-viability abortions. It was also 

performed before viability. But that was of no moment to the Supreme Court in determining that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban 

Act was constitutional, despite the absence of a health exception. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Ms. Yeung, you had mentioned—well, let me just comment. You 

had mentioned that, you know, a fetus or a baby or unborn child, 

whatever terminology one prefers, can’t survive outside the womb, 

the womb beyond—before 24 weeks. That is why I believe that we 

82 

shouldn’t remove those babies from the womb before 24 weeks. In 

fact, we ought to let them go to term and then be delivered naturally and enjoy the same life that we all have. 

Let me ask you this: Do you think it is okay to determine the 

sex of the child and you find out it is a girl and then to terminate 

that life? Do you think that should be the law? 

Ms. YEUNG. Thank you for the question. 

And thank you also for inviting Mr. Black to be part of the panel. 

As a reproductive—— 

Mr. CHABOT. I have got a limited amount of time, if you could 

get to my question. Do you believe it is okay to terminate the life 

of that child simply because you found out that it is a little girl? 

Yes or no? 

Ms. YEUNG. Because eugenics is an issue that reproductive justice organizations have really cared about, and coercive actions on 

the part of any person to make or force a woman to make a decision that she cannot—or that she is not asked about making—— 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes or no, that is what I am asking. Do you think 

it should be okay? 

Ms. YEUNG. I believe is just as bad. So I would believe that coercing or a woman to become a parent when she knows it is not the 

best thing for her—— 

Mr. CHABOT. Let’s talk about coercion. I think you heard this 

study about Indian American women that showed that a significant 

proportion of those women were coerced, either beaten, or even food 

and water oftentimes withheld from them because they wanted to 

continue to proceed to have their daughter, but they were forced, 

there was coercion there. Do you think that that coercion should 

affect the decision as to whether one should have that abortion or 

not? 

Ms. YEUNG. This bill does not address anything on coercion, and 

I would submit that we have the support of many South Asian organizations, including the South Asian Americans Leading Together—— 

Mr. CHABOT. I think my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. And 

I would just note that the witness still hasn’t the question yes or 

no. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, the coercion statement is in the first and second section of the criminal part of the bill, so coercion is definitely 

addressed in the bill. 

I now recognize Mr. Quigley for 5 minutes. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Aden, I respect your viewpoints. I just want to ask you about 

the racial aspect of this. The study I saw with Guttmacher is that 

only 1 in 10 abortion clinics in the United States are in predominantly Black neighborhoods. African American women have less access to sex education and contraception. Isn’t it more likely that 

that is the reason there are more unwanted pregnancies and abortions among the Black community than among the White community? 

Mr. ADEN. Actually, Mr. Quigley, I am not sure I agree with the 

statement. That is not in the record. Planned Parent and other organizations have poured millions and millions into predominately 

minority neighborhoods in the last 40 years. 

83 

Mr. QUIGLEY. That is a 2008 Guttmacher study, 1 in 10. 

Mr. ADEN. Well, sir, there are a couple of studies that indicate 

that predominately abortion clinics are located in disproportionately minority neighborhoods, somewhere between 70 and 80 percent. A lot of us believe that has been intentional; that has been 

a policy on the part of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. 

What this bill does, sir, is not target the mere placement of an 

abortion clinic in a predominantly minority neighborhood. It targets the purposeful termination of a baby’s life because that baby 

is of a disfavored race. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. It is the fundamental premise of the legislation, as 

we are reading this, is we are concerned with African Americans 

having more abortions and that somehow it is a race-based decision. There is a deliberate attempt out there to have more Blacks 

have abortions. 

When you mention Planned Parenthood, if that is their grand 

plan, why would they offer contraception? Why would they promote 

sex education, which you have to believe reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies? You have to agree. I don’t know of any studies 

that show that African American women have more access to these 

things and have fewer unintended pregnancies as a result. 

Mr. ADEN. Well, I think that shows the failure of those family 

planning policies, that so many millions have been poured into contraceptives for minority populations and yet they still have abortions at a much higher rate. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. And I am not trying to rush you, talk as long as 

you need to on that point, but you don’t believe in a woman’s right 

to choose. That is your point. Do you believe a woman should have 

access to contraception on an equal basis? 

Mr. ADEN. I am sorry, would you repeat the question, please? 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Should women have a right to contraception on an 

equal basis? 

Mr. ADEN. I don’t think my opinion on that subject is part of this 

hearing or one of the issues. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. It helps me understand—— 

Mr. ADEN. It is not about family planning, Mr. Quigley. 

It has nothing to do with clinics that provide contraception, 

chemical or otherwise, or family planning. It has to do with clinics 

that provide abortion. Family planning doesn’t reduce the numbers 

of, for example, African Americans by 14 million over the last 40 

years. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Do you believe that contraception, if available, reduces unintended pregnancies? I guess it is the other way—— 

Mr. ADEN. I think the jury is out on that question, Mr. Quigley. 

I don’t think that has been proven. I think that is the Guttmacher 

Institute’s position, but as you know, Guttmacher is financed by 

and was started by Planned Parenthood and recites the party line. 

So I don’t think it can be trusted. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. You don’t believe Black women want to have abortions because they don’t like having Black babies. 

Mr. ADEN. No, sir. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. So they have abortions because they have unintended pregnancies disproportionate to the White population. 

84 

Mr. ADEN. That is not what this bill targets, sir. This bill targets 

providers who provide abortions based on race, just as it targets 

abortionists that provide abortions based on sex. If the abortionist 

knows that the mother desires to abort the baby because of the sex 

or because of the race, for example in a case in Maine, where the 

parents of a minor girl tried to force her to have an abortion because the father was African American. A perfect example. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. So the physician would say to an African American 

woman, to follow a process that you are thinking here, are you having this abortion because your child is Black? That is what they 

would have to ask? 

Mr. ADEN. That would be an example of private racial discrimination that would be the subject of this legislation, yes, sir, if that 

were the case. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. So you would have a physician ask a woman of 

color if she is having this abortion because her child is minority? 

Mr. ADEN. There is nothing in the bill, sir, that requires the 

abortionist to go into a lengthy inquiry about the patient’s state of 

mind. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. How will they make the decision then? 

Mr. ADEN. If the patient made that statement to them, ‘‘Doctor, 

I can’t have this baby because it’s Black or because this baby is my 

third daughter.’’ 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

King—I am sorry, Mr. Iowa. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses for your testimony. 

I listen to this discussion and the disproportionate number of female babies that are aborted, I think of a story that I recall hearing some years ago, and it referenced some of the British occupation of India 200 years ago, when a British general found himself 

on a location where there was an Indian man who had died and 

they were getting ready to build the funeral pyre to force the 

widow to die on the funeral pyre, because that was what they did. 

And the British general began building a gallows. And they said, 

what are you doing? He said, I am building a gallows. They said, 

why? He said because you are about to burn this widow on the funeral pyre. And they said that is our custom. And the British general said to them, that is your custom. When you burn the widow 

on this funeral pyre, I will follow our custom, and I will hang you 

all. That was 200 years ago. 

During World War II, I had a friend, who has since passed away, 

his name is Gill Copper, Fort Dodge, Iowa. He went down under 

the bridge in the Ganges River in India, and when he had any 

leave time during the Second World War, just stood there or sat 

and listened and waited for the splash, for the splash of a little girl 

baby being thrown off the bridge into the Ganges River, because it 

was still their custom to disrespect the little female lives in their 

culture. 

So here we are, the modern version of this, the modern version 

of this that is identified by what we call science, and a way to bypass the guilt of listening to that widow scream or that baby gurgle 

85 

in the river, and now it is a science-selected death of an innocent 

little baby. 

I just saw the little children in the back, and it warms me to see 

them. 

And I hear your testimony, Ms. Yeung. But I just ask you, you 

testified that you did well in science, and I accept that. You said 

that a fetus can’t live outside the womb short of 24 weeks. But I 

don’t think that has been upheld by science. I think there are hundreds of little babies that have survived outside the womb before 

24 weeks. 

So I would just ask you, you know, when did those little girls’ 

lives begin? At what instant was it? And could you actually take 

their life the minute before they were born or the day or the week 

or the month? Could you really take them back and say viability, 

and if you don’t know that moment of viability, doesn’t it have to 

be an instant, an instant that life begins? Because if not, aren’t we 

playing guessing games with innocent unborn human lives? How 

can you be a mother and not think about those things as learned 

as you are in science? 

Ms. YEUNG. Respectfully, I am a very good mother. 

I think, you know, this bill purports to address gender inequity 

and gender discrimination, which is a driver of your preference, 

and we have been on record very concerned about gender inequities. And all of the international agencies that I have mentioned 

before have all talked about—— 

Mr. KING. Ms. Yeung, I apologize for having to interrupt you, but 

I do recall that you didn’t answer the question from the gentleman 

from Ohio, so I don’t think I want to let the clock tick down on this. 

I will just ask you, have you contemplated the instant that your 

child’s life began? Do you think of that in the terms of a instant 

in the way I framed the question to you? 

Ms. YEUNG. I think that is a question of a very personal nature. 

Mr. KING. You are here to testify though as an expert witness 

and as a mother and you identified that in your testimony. 

Ms. YEUNG. Sure. 

Mr. KING. So are you here now saying that you would advocate 

that we not limit the abortion of little baby girls based on your testimony that I shouldn’t ask you personal questions? Isn’t it personal to those little unborn babies? 

Ms. YEUNG. I am here to testify for—against racial discrimination and against gender discrimination. I will not submit myself to 

personal questions of that nature and insinuations that I am not 

a perfectly fine mother. 

Mr. KING. Then I would say that you are disqualified here as a 

witness, and I am done with my questions of you. 

And I would turn to the gentleman Mr. Black, and I ask you, Mr. 

Black, you have done some research or written a book, and I am 

interested in the genesis of the Planned Parenthood. Who were the 

people that formed it, the years prior to World War II, the first half 

of 20th Century, what were the names of the organizations that 

emerged from those leaders, the names of the leaders, the names 

of the organizations that emerged from those leaders and how that 

morphed into Planned Parenthood? 

86 

Mr. BLACK. You want the history of Margaret—Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger before Hitler, before the Third Reich? 

Mr. KING. Yes, the names of the American players in particular. 

Mr. BLACK. Well, this is a very, very sensitive matter, so it is important to put the truth in context, and I am not seeking to judge 

modern day organizations by what happened 60, 70, 80 years ago. 

But since you have asked me the history, I should tell you that 

Margaret Sanger was one of the leading eugenicists in the United 

States. She was a racist. She believed in saving humanity, the historical record and her own writings show, and saving it by eliminating two-thirds of it. 

She referred to the people she wanted to get rid of as human 

weeds. She was never, contrary to some suggestion that she was 

a good face for eugenics, he was never accepted in the eugenics circles by the American Eugenics Society, et cetera, because she was 

a woman. And she was trying to find a humane alternative to gas 

chambers, coercive sterilization, confinement, et cetera, et cetera. 

She did have midnight meetings with the Ku Klux Klan. Adolf 

Hitler did write fan mail to her colleague Lothrop Stoddard, who 

wrote ‘‘The Passing of the Great White Race,’’ and Adolph Hitler 

wrote to him, your book is my Bible. And she maintained her identity as a eugenicist long after World War II finished and long after 

eugenics was codified into international law, the Genocide Treaty, 

as a crime against humanity and as a violation under Article II, 

Sub D, of the Genocide Treaty as genocide because a particular 

group was being identified. That’s the facts of the history. 

I can give you lots of facts about this institution, which also enabled these very same people, such as Harry Laughlin during the 

National Origins Act created the Federal Eugenics Officer who 

then devised the formula that Hitler employed to have the Nuremberg laws, for which Harry Laughlin from the Carnegie Institution 

received an award from the Hitler regime in 1937. 

Where did they get this idea of a half Jew and a quarter Jew and 

a 16th of a Jew? That all came from the Congress of the United 

States. That all came from Harry Laughlin, Federal Eugenics Officer. That all came from the Carnegie Institution. That is who invented this stuff. 

So the short answer to your question, was Margaret Sanger a 

racist with an organic connection to Nazism, the short answer is 

yes. The long answer is, the short answer isn’t as good as the long 

answer. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Black. 

I appreciate it and I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. King. 

And I recognize Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Aden, is it legal in America to force someone to have an 

abortion? 

Mr. ADEN. No, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is it legal to force someone to have an abortion? 

Mr. ADEN. To the best of my knowledge, there is no Federal law 

that prohibits it. A number of States have passed laws that do. Of 

course, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade said something about it 

being a woman’s choice and actually upheld in Roe v. Wade, afVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:46 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\120611\71599.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
87 

firmed the right of pro-life doctors and nurses not to participate in 

abortions. So, from the beginning, it was intended that it be a 

woman’s choice, which is why it is so important for this legislation 

to target coerced abortion. To my knowledge, this will be the first 

time that it is addressed in Federal legislation. 

Mr. SCOTT. So if you forced a woman to undergo an abortion, 

that would not be a crime in the United States? 

Mr. ADEN. It might be kid—I am not an expert on criminal law, 

sir, but I do believe it would be kidnapping. It would be battery. 

Mr. SCOTT. You can’t imagine that forcing someone to have an 

abortion and not looking at civil—criminal liability? 

Mr. ADEN. Yes, sir. It would also be battery on the part of the 

doctor if he knew that the woman was not giving her consent. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay, that would be forced and coercion. If you forced 

someone to have abortion, would that be a crime in the United 

States? 

Mr. ADEN. If it took those forms that fall under those criminal 

statutes, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Because in your perfect example, you had parents 

who forced their daughter to have an abortion because of the race 

of the father. If the parents forced their daughter to have an abortion for any other reason, wouldn’t that be a crime? 

Mr. ADEN. It could be. 

Mr. SCOTT. It could be. 

Mr. ADEN. It could be. And, again, on the part of the doctor if 

he knew the minor didn’t give her full informed consent, it would 

be battery. 

Mr. SCOTT. So the situation that you—perfect example you gave 

where they forced her to have an abortion because of the race of 

the father, that has already got to be a crime? 

Mr. ADEN. Depending on the circumstances, yes, sir, it would be. 

But civil rights legislation has not waited for all of the particulars 

of private action to add up to a Federal offense in order to prophylactically address activity, like excluding African Americans from 

lodging, lunch counters, education and other places like that. 

There is a place appropriately for broad prophylactic measures 

that the Congress has said many times and the Supreme Court has 

affirmed in addressing—— 

Mr. SCOTT. In those cases, it was not illegal to decide—you could 

decide who you wanted in your hotel and who you didn’t want in 

your hotel, and what the civil rights laws did was to establish protective classes, where you could not exclude certain people because 

of those characteristics. 

Mr. ADEN. That is right, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And we made something that was legal illegal. And 

the question was whether or not forcing someone or coercing someone to have an abortion is already illegal, whatever the purpose. 

How would you ascertain what the purpose was if there was no 

comment made as to the purpose of the abortion? 

Mr. ADEN. The same way that the Justice Department’s Civil 

Rights Division ascertains that fact in enforcing a variety of civil 

rights legislation; the statements of the perpetrator, the circumstances of the action, the usual tools that a prosecutor has in 

proving the elements of a crime or offense. 

88 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if a doctor is performing abortions, and someone comes in for a sex-selected abortion and nothing is said one 

way or the other—I mean, we have heard a lot about the numbers 

of abortions and the race and location. How would you—if a lot of 

abortions are going on, in an individual abortion, how would you 

prosecute a doctor for performing abortions that had the effect of 

being racially biased? 

Mr. ADEN. Well, in the case of a sex-selection abortion, for example, there is a requirement that a doctor ascertain that he or she 

has obtained full informed consent from the patient. It is under 

common law. It is under State statute. If a woman comes in and 

she has had, for example, two abortions in a row of a female baby, 

that might raise an inference in the mind of the doctor and might 

impose on the doctor an obligation to inquire about the circumstances to ensure that the patient has not been coerced into 

this abortion, particularly if she comes from one of the populations, 

subpopulations, that has a proclivity toward this kind of coerced 

abortion for gender. 

Mr. SCOTT. If he doesn’t do that due diligence, he is guilty of a 

criminal offense? 

Mr. ADEN. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. SCOTT. If he does not do the due diligence to ascertain why 

the woman is having an abortion, he would be exposed to criminal 

prosecution? 

Mr. ADEN. If the circumstances are patent to the average reasonable doctor, it might be a matter for an inquiry by the Justice Department, yes, sir. That is the seriousness with which we take racial and gender discrimination in this country. 

Ms. YEUNG. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. FRANKS. In the interest of not having to come back here after 

votes, we are going to have a second round here. I think there are 

only three of us left and maybe we can do this without having 

could to come back after votes. So I am going to go ahead and recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

You know, I think it is important to remind ourselves here that 

we have talked about a lot of different things here, but this bill essentially says that you can’t discriminate against the unborn by 

subjecting them to an abortion based on their race or sex. 

Ms. Yeung, you testified that you were here to address racial or 

discrimination inequities against women or different races. And I 

would just suggest to you that being aborted because you are a little girl is a gender inequity. And I know you are having a hard 

time with that. It is unfortunate. It doesn’t seem like you have 

read the bill, because you didn’t know there was a section in there 

on coercion, and it was one of the main parts of the bill. 

Be that as it may, to address Mr. Mosher’s concern or question 

here earlier that was asked, Mr. Mosher, isn’t it true that on the 

State level, that battery like that would be like a State misdemeanor, and this would make coercing a woman to abort her 

child because the child is a little girl then would become a felony? 

That is one of the distinctions in the bill, is that correct? 

Mr. MOSHER. Yes, I would agree with that. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir. 

89 

Let me, if I could, return to you, Mr. Black. You know, when I 

look back at the effect of eugenicist ideas, sometimes ideas have 

pretty profound implications. From your testimony today, I am 

sensing that—and you can correct me if I am wrong when you respond—that the abortion-birth control establishment early on in 

this country had roots in eugenics, and it appears that those eugenic goals were tantamount to genocide. And it appears that they 

achieved those goals, if you look at some of the numbers today. 

Also it is clear to me that some of these eugenicist ideas were part 

of the tragedy that took place in Europe, that catalyzed the genocide in Europe and the ultimate ensuing war that took place because of it. And if I remember right, about 50 million people died 

in that war. 

So these ideas are not trivial ideas. Fifty million unborn children 

have died since 1973 in this country. And when they talk about has 

it liberated women, I am not sure we have liberated women by killing 50 million children. It seems like there’s better ways to help 

mothers than killing their children for them. 

But my question is this: We are never quite so eloquent as when 

we decry the crimes of a past generation, and we are never quite 

so blind as when we assess genocide in our own time, and sometimes we don’t know what present policies like a eugenicist attitude portend for future generations. 

So, can you tell us in your mind if we don’t draw a line here at 

sex selection and race selection, what does the future portend? 

What are the policies going forward? What are the possibilities? 

Where are we going as a people if we allow this to be sewn into 

our policies regarding some of these new technologies and some of 

these new ways that we are delving into the very deepest elements 

of life? 

Mr. BLACK. Thank you for the question. First of all, I should 

mention that I had unrestricted access to all the files of Planned 

Parenthood and Margaret Sanger, published and unpublished, to a 

large extent when I did my research, as well as all of her writings. 

Planned Parenthood at that time, not now, but at that time was 

not rooted in eugenics. It was eugenics. It was open eugenics. The 

cause and effect of what the United States race policy did here and 

what we did in—what we funded in Germany, what we inspired in 

Germany, with Nazi Germany, we know exactly what books Hitler 

was reading in his prison cell when he was writing Mein Kampf 

and which editions they were and which eugenics books and which 

publishers and translations. I have all of that down. 

Now, we are moving, and let me just bring out the Genocide 

Treaty here. I always carry it with me. The reason that Article II, 

Sub D, imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the 

group, and the group here being women or any race or any gender, 

the reason that is important is because eugenics is an attempt to 

affect bloodlines. 

You know, they used to say that you can take a Negro and you 

could dress him up in a toga and teach him Latin and that would 

not make him a Roman. It was the descendants of this society that 

they were always worried about based on Mendel’s principles of heredity with the striped pea and the smooth pea. And right now, 

today, this minute, the transhumanist movement, which is wellVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:46 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\120611\71599.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
90 

funded and well-established, and corporations who have run afoul 

of the genetic anti-discrimination statutes both in the U.K. and the 

U.S. are trying to manipulate and create a society. 

I would defer to Mr. Mosher, who knows more than I about this, 

but if I am not mistaken, in approximately 8 years, as a result of 

son preference and this subtraction of women, in approximately 8 

years, some 40 to 45 million Chinese young men under the age of 

20 will not have brides because of the gender imbalance. He can 

correct me. 

Mr. FRANKS. Would you like it address that, Mr. Mosher? 

Mr. BLACK. And just one other thing; 40 to 45 million, it is in 

8 years. It just two more terms, that 40-45 million is approximately 

the same size of the male population in the United States of America at that particular age, 18, 19 and 20. And this data comes from 

the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, to which Mr. Mosher is far 

more qualified to talk than I do. 

So the reason I am here is because you are attempting to address 

a doorway that our society is going into because we are moving 

from organized and systemic, and that is the key word, systemized, 

organized and systemized subtraction of a group, in this case 

women or Black people or whatever gender it is, to create, to socially engineer. If we just let it keep going this way, there is reason 

to believe that we won’t really have a society because we will have 

gone against the biological imperatives and the biological opportunities that are a balance between the genders provide in a natural 

society. So, actually, you are slightly ahead of the game, because, 

I assure you, it is coming. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Mosher, did you want to follow up? More. 

Mr. MOSHER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say that 

those numbers are approximately right. The selective elimination 

of little girls in China continues apace, more so by sex-selective 

abortion now than by female infanticide, and that is going to cause 

huge social problems in China in the future. And you can already 

see those problems arising now with tens of millions of young men 

not being able to find brides. 

But I must say that I think that the insouciance of some of the 

people on the other side of this issue who are not enthusiastic 

about the PRENDA bill must derive from the fact that they think 

these are transitory phenomena, that, yes, these immigrant populations will practice this now, but the problem will disappear over 

time. And I would remind people here that the study that looked 

into that question by Almond and Edmond pointed out that women 

in those minority populations who were born here actually had 

higher rates, not lower rates, but higher rates of sex-selective abortion. 

So this is not a problem that is likely to simply disappear over 

time. And indeed, with our reckless genetic engineering, as in the 

future, we start selecting for hair color, height, IQ, eye color and 

everything else, and against eye colors and skin colors that we 

don’t like, that sex-selective abortion and race-selective abortion is 

probably going to become more common rather than less common 

as the technology becomes available. Violence against women will 

become more common in this regard rather than less common. So 

the time, I believe, to legislate against this is now. 

91 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to inquire of Mr. Mosher, you went to study in 

China in the late 1970’s. Was it right before the beginning of the 

one child policy that you arrived there or right after? 

Mr. MOSHER. Well, I arrived in China in March 1980, about 2 

months after we normalized diplomatic relations with the People’s 

Republic of China. I was teaching at the University of California 

at Berkeley at the time. And the program descended upon the area 

that I was in, in the spring of 1980, in March 1980. 

Quotas went out from the provincial government reflecting new 

directives from the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist 

Party, directing that the population of Canton Province not increase by more than 1 percent in 1980, and they carried out that 

dictate by arresting women for the crime of being pregnant. These 

were women who in many cases were 7, 8, and 9 months pregnant, 

who had gotten pregnant when it was legal to have a second or a 

third or fourth order child, and now all of a sudden, the state was 

declaring their pregnancies illegal. And then I went with them as 

they were taken in for forced abortions. 

Obviously, you will understand that I am very sensitive to issues 

of coercion because I am an eyewitness to coercion in China. I saw 

women taken in by force and given cesarean section abortions in 

the third trimester of pregnancy, which is not a pretty sight. 

But there are levels of coercion and there are levels of abuse, 

and, unfortunately, we see elements of the coercion that takes 

place in China, not just on a cultural level or a social level, but actually on a physical level, in some populations, some communities 

in the United States. So there is coercion involved in sex-selective 

abortion in the United States. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Mosher, I am just very curious. It is a gruesome 

story, and I understand that, but how you transpose that into the 

United States, I can’t imagine this public accepting something like 

that. What goes on in the culture or the minds of the Chinese to 

allow something like that to happen, forced abortions and cesariansection abortions in the 7th, 8th and 9th month. How did the public 

react to that? What existed within their culture that allowed that 

to happen? 

Mr. MOSHER. That is a very interesting question which would 

probably take—the answer to which would take more time than we 

have at our disposal. But I can say that the brunt of the one child 

policy has fallen on girls. It is girls who are discriminated against 

in the womb. It is girls who are discriminated against after birth. 

It is girls who fill the orphanages of China, being abandoned by 

their parents in the hope that they can then go to the officials and 

say, my daughter is no longer here; may I have permission to have 

another child? 

Mr. KING. Do you accept the number of 35,000 forced abortions 

a day in China? 

Mr. MOSHER. Absolutely. The number of abortions in China 

ranges from 7 to 15 million each year. Many of those abortions involve elements of coercion. Some of them, not an insignificant number, involve out and out coercion, out and out physical force. 

92 

Mr. KING. And that number is probably reduced over years because they have been adapting to the policy of one child in different 

ways to avoid the gruesomeness of the way it abruptly entered 

upon the society that you were in? 

Mr. MOSHER. Well, there are two factors. One is that subsequent 

to a forced abortion, the women in question are generally sterilized, 

so they will not be back illegally pregnant in years to come. That 

has reduced gradually over time the number of abortions. China’s 

economic development with urbanization and modernization has reduced the desire of young people in China who live in cities for 

children. So that has lowered the level of abortions and coercion in 

China. 

But the policy still continues. We have been in China. We at The 

Population Research Institute carry out periodic investigations in 

China. We do work in China. And there are still high levels of coercion in that country. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Mosher. 

I would like to turn to Mr. Aden, who hasn’t had a lot of action 

here today and ask you this question—I posed it a little bit in the 

earlier round. But this practice that exists in this country with regard to sex-selected abortions and race-selected abortions, if this 

Congress were to advocate for such a policy in the affirmative, if 

we passed a law in this Congress that brought about sex-selected 

abortions, race-selected abortions, and promoted them, as was the 

law in China, what do you think the results would be in the streets 

of America and how would you respond to that? 

Mr. ADEN. Well, as a lawyer, I would have to say that in the corridors of the Supreme Court it would not fly, because it would be 

racial and gender discrimination. And I cannot imagine the Congress passing such a policy like China’s. 

Mr. KING. But can only government discriminate by race and 

gender, or can individuals do that? Doesn’t the 14th Amendment 

protect all by the same standard? 

Mr. ADEN. Well, sir, the Constitution applies directly, of course, 

to government officials—Federal, State, and local public officials. It 

does not directly apply to the acts of private individuals. 

But the Supreme Court has affirmed in cases like Heart of Atlanta Motel and Katzenbach v. McClung that the Commerce Clause 

is an appropriate authority for eradicating badges of slavery. And 

in other cases involving gender discrimination, the Court has applied that rule to gender discrimination based on outmoded, archaic 

stereotypes. 

So what the Supreme Court has said is that it is not—Congress 

is not bound to sit and wait until racially discriminatory and gender discriminatory policies make themselves manifest. They can 

act—the Congress can act proactively in addressing them, as it has 

many times. 

Mr. KING. And haven’t we also acted, at least by resolution, to 

reject the genocide in China that Mr. Mosher talked about, as an 

act of Congress? 

Mr. ADEN. Oh, certainly, yes. The resolutions there, the words of 

the Secretary of State condemning China’s sex-selection policy, and 

the efforts of our delegation to the United Nations Committee on 

the Status of Women would point to that. 

93 

Mr. KING. Then would it be consistent of Congress to pass this 

legislation that is the subject of this hearing today consistent with 

the previous acts of Congress that have condemned the genocide in 

the other countries? 

Mr. ADEN. Yes, sir, it would be quite consistent with Congress’ 

previous statements on these issues. 

Mr. KING. All right. I thank you, Mr. Aden. 

And I thank all the witnesses for your testimony and the Chairman for the hearing. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Black, you have heard a lot of numbers here 

today. And I hear you talking about the never-born. Do you believe 

that the numbers here related to up to 200 million baby girls 

worldwide, do you believe that the numbers are overstated as to 

the impact of the policies that we have discussed this morning, or 

this afternoon? 

Mr. BLACK. From the historical perspective, I think that these 

numbers are not overstated; they might be understated. 

You know, when you attempt to wipe away the stars and there 

are no stars left and you say, ‘‘Now I have counted all the stars, 

I will wipe them away,’’ what about the stars you cannot see that 

are beyond your plane of sight? I believe that we can’t fathom or 

measure what has been lost from any genocide. We cannot fathom 

or measure what is lost from any society by subtracting the young 

man that you spoke of playing piano with his feet, a Stephen 

Hawking, a bad mathematician like Albert Einstein, a guy with a 

bad back like me, and lots of other people. For heaven’s sake, there 

was a guy on one of these TV shows; he was competing for the best 

singer. And he was found in a shoebox in an orphanage in Iraq. 

None of us may judge the value of a human being. We don’t have 

the measuring sticks, and we don’t have the right, historically 

speaking, to do this to another person. And that is why the genocide laws indicate the group, any group, whether it is Biafrans; 

whether it is American Indians, who were imposed upon by the 

BIA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, to get abortions and to get forcibly 

sterilized. None of us can decide what is best for humanity. That 

is what nature is about. That is what the Almighty is about, if I 

can use the historical term, okay? 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I don’t know how to add a great deal to that 

or what other questions I could ask that would bring more relevance to the central point here. 

The fact is that when we consider historically some of the great 

struggles of our past, whether it is World War II that cost us 50 

million people or whether it is 50 million abortions since 1973 or 

whether it is 200 million little baby girls that have been aborted 

because they are little girls—I think someone would say the civil 

war in our country had something to do with racial inequity—it 

does call out to each of us that this notion that we can just have 

ideas that suggest that another group or another person is less 

than we are or that somehow they can be discarded and that it not 

have a tremendous impact on the greater whole of humanity is a 

failed notion. 

94 

And the implications are pretty profound. I heard a gentleman 

earlier today say, you know, the most dangerous three words in the 

world now are, ‘‘It’s a girl.’’ 

And I just want to thank all of you for being here. 

I believe, Mr. Black, your comments about some of the challenges 

that we face are so very relevant. 

And I hope that somehow we can end this hearing where we 

began, and that is the notion that, in America, everyone is created 

equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, 

and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

And that pretty much covers all of us. And if we can hold on to 

that, I think there is hope for humanity. 

And, with that, I would just say, without objection, all Members 

will have 5 legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, which we will forward to the witnesses and ask them to respond as promptly as they can so their 

answers may be part of the record. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days in 

which to submit any additional materials for inclusion in the 

record. 

And, with that, again, I thank all the witnesses. 

And I thank all of the people that have joined us here today in 

the audience. There wasn’t any fighting or cussing or throwing 

bricks or anything. It was wonderful. I appreciate you all being 

here. 

And this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(95) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

96 

Material Submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution 


71599F.eps
97 


71599G-1.eps
98 


71599G-2.eps
99 


71599G-3.eps
100 


71599G-4.eps
101 


71599G-5.eps
102 


71599G-6.eps
103 


71599G-7.eps
104 


71599G-8.eps
105 


71599G-9.eps
106 


71599G-10.eps
107 


71599G-11.eps
108 


71599G-12.eps
109 


71599G-13.eps
110 


71599G-14.eps
111 


71599G-15.eps
112 


71599G-16.eps
113 


71599G-17.eps
114 


71599G-18.eps
115 


71599G-19.eps
116 


71599G-20.eps
117 


71599G-21.eps
118 


71599G-22.eps
119 


71599G-23.eps
120 


71599G-24.eps
121 


71599G-25.eps
122 


71599G-26.eps
123 


71599G-27.eps
124 


71599G-28.eps
125 


71599G-29.eps
126 


71599G-30.eps
127 


71599G-31.eps
128 


71599G-32.eps
129 


71599G-33.eps
130 


71599G-34.eps
131 


71599G-35.eps
132 


71599G-36.eps
133 


71599G-37.eps
134 


71599G-38.eps
135 


71599G-39.eps
136 


71599G-40.eps
137 


71599G-41.eps
138 


71599G-42.eps
139 


71599G-43.eps
140 


71599G-44.eps
141 


71599G-45.eps
142 


71599G-46.eps
143 


71599G-47.eps
144 


71599H-1.eps
145 


71599H-2.eps
146 


71599H-3.eps
147 


71599I-1.eps
148 


71599I-2.eps
149 


71599I-3.eps
150 


71599J-1.eps
151 


71599J-2.eps
152 


71599K-1.eps
153 


71599K-2.eps
154 


71599L-1.eps
155 


71599L-2.eps
156 


71599M-1.eps
157 


71599M-2.eps
158 


71599M-3.eps
159 


71599M-4.eps
160 


71599M-5.eps
161 


71599M-6.eps
162 


71599N-1.eps
163 


71599N-2.eps
164 


71599N-3.eps
165 


71599O-1.eps
166 


71599O-2.eps
167 


71599O-3.eps
168 


71599O-4.eps
169 


71599O-5.eps
170 


71599P-1.eps
171 


71599P-2.eps
172 


71599P-3.eps
173 


71599P-4.eps
174 


71599Q-1.eps
175 


71599Q-2.eps
176 


71599R-1.eps
177 


71599R-2.eps
178 

f 


71599R-3.eps
179 

Material Submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution 


71599S-1.eps
180 


71599S-2.eps
181 


71599S-3.eps
182 


71599T-1.eps
183 


71599T-2.eps
184 


71599U-1.eps
185 


71599U-2.eps
186 


71599U-3.eps
187 


71599U-4.eps
188 


71599U-5.eps
189 


71599V-1.eps
190 


71599V-2.eps
191 


71599W-1.eps
192 


71599W-2.eps
193 


71599W-3.eps
194 


71599W-4.eps
195 


71599W-5.eps
196 


71599X-1.eps
197 


71599X-2.eps
198 


71599Y-1.eps
199 


71599Y-2.eps
200 


71599Y-3.eps
201 


71599Y-4.eps
202 


71599Y-5.eps
203 


71599Y-6.eps
204 


71599Y-7.eps
205 


71599Y-8.eps
206 


71599Y-9.eps
207 

Æ 


71599Z.eps