U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

99–783 PDF 2016

PRENATAL NONDISCRIMINATION ACT 

(PRENDA) OF 2016 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION 

AND CIVIL JUSTICE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 4924 

APRIL 14, 2016 

Serial No. 114–70 

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 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL JUSTICE

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

JAMES J. PARK, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 14, 2016 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil 

Justice ................................................................................................................... 1 

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

of Tennessee, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution 

and Civil Justice ................................................................................................... 2 

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 10 

WITNESSES 

Catherine Davis, Founding Core Member, National Black Pro-Life Coalition, 

and President, The Restoration Project 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

Anna Higgins, J.D., Associate Scholar, Charlotte Lozier Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31 

Miriam Yeung, MPA, Executive Director, The National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 43 

Derek McCoy, Reverend, National Clergy Relations Director, Center of Urban 

Renewal and Education 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on the Constitution and Civil Justice ................................................................. 5 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in 

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

Constitution and Civil Justice ............................................................................ 12 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Addendum to the Prepared Statement of Derek McCoy, Reverend, National 

Clergy Relations Director, Center of Urban Renewal and Education ............. 66 

Question for the Record submitted to Miriam Yeung, MPA, Executive Director, The National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum ............................. 71 

Prepared Statement of Steven W. Mosher, President, Population Research 

Institute ................................................................................................................ 73 

Prepared Statement of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum 

(NAPAWF) ............................................................................................................ 76 
(IV) 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

UNPRINTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Text of H.R. llll, the ‘‘Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2016’’ 

available at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104783 

The bill, H.R. 4924, the ‘‘Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2016’’ 

https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr4924/BILLS-114hr4924ih.pdf 

Supplemental material submitted by Anna Higgins, J.D., Associate Scholar, Charlotte Lozier Institute 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104783 

Material submitted by the Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104783 

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Tennessee, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104783 
(1) 

PRENATAL NONDISCRIMINATION ACT 

(PRENDA) OF 2016 

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

AND CIVIL JUSTICE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3 p.m., in room 2237, 

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Franks, Goodlatte, King, Gohmert, Jordan, Cohen, Conyers, Nadler, Deutch, and Chu. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Paul Taylor, Chief Counsel; Tricia 

White, Clerk; (Minority) James Park, Minority Counsel; Matthew 

Morgan, Professional Staff Member; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. FRANKS. The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil 

Justice will come to order. Without objection the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. I want to 

thank all of you for being here. 

You know, 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 that they 

are 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 to 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 so, in 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 civil right of all. The result is that today in America 

between 40 and 50 percent of all African-American babies, virtually 
2 

1 in 2, are killed before they are born, which is a greater cause of 

death for African-Americans than heart disease, cancer, diabetes, 

AIDS, and violence combined. 

An 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. More than 14 million African-American babies 

have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. It translates to over onefourth of the African-American population in America today. When 

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

in America simply because they are little girls instead of little boys, 

these are travesties that should assault the mind and conscience of 

every American. 

In the course of the Committee’s investigation into Planned Parenthood, we have discovered that it is training clinic staff to answer questions from patients about sex selection and race selection 

abortions. Planned Parenthood physicians are clearly being confronted with the issue of whether or not a child can knowingly be 

aborted when the underlying reason is discriminatory. 

Currently only eight States prohibit abortions for the reason of 

sex selection at some point during the pregnancy. My home State 

of Arizona also prohibits sex selection and race-based abortions. 

Now, the subject of the hearing today, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, restricts sex selection abortion and race selection abortion, and the coercion of a women to obtain either. The bill 

holds abortionists who prey on women accountable for their actions 

while holding the women on whom the abortion is performed harmless under the law. 

Now, there will be those who will 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 2016 in the land of the free and the home of the brave. 

Across human history the greatest voices among us have always 

emphasized the critical responsibility of each of 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 our brethren.’’ In Matthew 25, Jesus said, ‘‘Inasmuch as you have done and one of the 

least of these my brethren and you have done it under 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.’’ 

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 our hearts and minds again. 

And with that, I would now yield to the Ranking Member for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that you are sincere 

about your beliefs and I know that reasonable people can differ and 
3 

we do, but I know that you are sincere and this is a heartfelt position for you. Nevertheless, I am disturbed that we have this hearing today. And I am disturbed because of the fact that first I do 

believe—and you mentioned in your opening statement that somebody would mention this, and yes, I am going to mention it—that 

this is really an assault on the woman’s right to choose and not 

simply anything to do with sex and race. 

And I am also concerned that this bill at one time was—no 

longer is, but one time had the name of Frederick Douglass in it 

and I think it besmirched the name of Frederick Douglass, who is 

one of the greatest Americans of all time. And that bothered me 

the last time we had this up and I opposed it. 

And in your opening statement you were right that our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, wonderful documents and 

said something in there about all men are created equal, they had 

inalienable rights, et cetera, but that was words on paper because 

we had slaves; and it did not end with the Civil War. It went on 

in the South at least until the 1960’s and the Voting Rights Act, 

the Civil Rights Act, Brown v. Board of Education. And it did not end there because in the South where I am from, 

which was the focus of the Voting Rights Act for good reason, people do not let—old times there are not forgotten and rarely given 

up. And segregation and racial injustice carried on into the 1970’s 

and the 1980’s and they carry on today. And we do not have Governors in the South now with interposition dripping off their lips 

standing in the schoolhouse door. 

But what we have got is Governors and legislators, not just in 

the South and as the Supreme Court did get it correct to some extent in the Voting Rights Act when they said it is not just a problem in those select States in the South, it is a problem all over the 

country and that they should not be specifically limited in the 

South, well, I do not know that they should have just been limited. 

The South is the worst at doing this and there may be problems 

in other parts in the country, indeed there are, with racial gerrymandering and impediments to people voting, but the South does 

it best. It is one of the South’s deals: We have got barbeque, we 

have got good football, and we do the best job if you want to really 

thwart a person’s opportunity to vote, the South does it. 

And so there should have been special circumstances there. But 

unfortunately it is a national problem, but the South is kind of the 

leader there. So all attempts to stop people from voting, which our 

Judiciary Committee has not taken up voting rights, that is where 

we should be looking at. We can give people an opportunity to vote. 

And if we can do things to give people opportunities to have a good 

living, have women have equal pay and to get jobs and get proper 

education, and poor people get education and be able to afford and 

well take care of children, you would cut down the rate of abortion 

in the African-American community. 

You are not going to do it with some bill like this. You are going 

to do it by giving African-American women better job opportunities 

and better pay and look out for them in every way possible so they 

can have a child and know they can afford it and that child will 

be brought into a house and a home with a mother that can take 

care of them. 
4 

Those are the issues we have got to be dealing with. And I know 

that these issues—the Chairman and the members of his party are 

aware of them, but they are not bringing bills to deal with them. 

We are saying if you have a job now you are losing your SNAP payments. But just because you have got a job does not mean you do 

not need assistance and that you and your family do not need some 

help. 

So this bill, which is opposed by about every group that cares 

about women’s choice and constitutional rights of a woman, is here 

like other bills we have had to really be an assault on Roe v. Wade. 

We have got an entire Committee set up to be an assault on Roe 

v. Wade. And yet we have got folks that need job training and monies for education. And we have got voting rights issues and we got 

healthcare issues. And we are not dealing with those things. We 

are not dealing with what causes the problem. And we really 

need—we are kind of picking these issues. 

And I understand the Chairman. The Chairman is very, very 

strong on this issue and he has got a heartfelt belief that really— 

I may be wrong, if I am wrong I do not mean it in an adverse way 

upon you—but I do not think you want abortion to be legal under 

any circumstances. And I understand your position, but I think 

women have a right to choose. I think Roe v. Wade was right. And 

I do not think we should be spending time on these type of issues, 

attack Roe v. Wade and women’s choice; and we should be dealing 

with voting rights and human rights and civil rights, and not 

under the guise of using those issues to frame a bill and a conversation that intends to overrule Roe v. Wade. 

So I would like to introduce for the record a statement from the 

Black Women Reproductive Justice Organizations, they oppose this 

bill; and also one from the physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. And without objection I would ask 

they be made part of the record. 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Mr. COHEN. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman and I would now yield 

to the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers of 

Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Franks. I am very delighted 

to be here with you and my good friend, Ranking Subcommittee 

Member Cohen and the highly-esteemed Judy Chu. To my friends 

here and our guests that are witnesses and our friends in the audience, this Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act is the latest attempt to 

erode the constitutional right to an abortion guaranteed by Roe v. 

Wade for over 40 years. Among other things, the bill would make 

it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion if he or she knows 

that the procedure is being done because of the race or sex of the 

fetus or the race of one of the parents regardless of viability. 

As I noted in an earlier Congress, the 112th, when we last considered this bill, it is flawed and patently unconstitutional because 

it bans certain pre-viable abortions. The Roe case already mentioned is clear that a woman has an absolutely constitutional right 

to have an abortion prior to fetal viability. And this legislation is 

another deliberate attempt by anti-choice activists to undermine 

and ultimately overturn Roe. In addition, this measure has nothing to do with civil rights. For 

instance, the bill proponents offer no evidence that women are 

choosing race-selective abortions. Indeed, these proponents do not 

even bother to make the claim that African-American women, for 

example, choose to abort their fetuses because the fetus or one of 

the parents is African-American. They do not make this argument 

because it is absurd on its face. And yet that is exactly the type 

of conduct that the bill supposedly prohibits. 

The bill’s proponents try to sidestep this obvious flaw by arguing 

instead that the bill is needed because abortions are disproportionately common in communities of color. But to the extent abortions 

are performed disproportionately in minority communities, the disparity points to broader socio-economic inequalities that banning 

abortion will not solve. 

The African-American and Hispanic communities are underserved when it comes to prenatal, maternal, and child healthcare 

services. This lack of access to reproductive healthcare results in 

African-American women being three to four times more likely to 

die from pregnancy-related causes than White women. And barriers 

to effective contraceptives and effective sex education, among other 

things, leads to the unintended pregnancy rate for African-American women being 67 percent versus 40 percent for White women. 

Minority communities lack access to adequate health care. 

Yet rather than addressing these disparities, the bill only reinforces them through its criminal penalties, which will create a 

chilling effect on doctors serving these communities. 

So finally I reject in the strongest possible terms the slander that 

Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are inherently 

racist. Planned Parenthood is a leading provider of high quality 

health care for women serving 2.7 million Americans a year. It provides many critical health services, such as annual wellness claims, 

cancer screenings, contraception, and the study of sexually transmitted diseases. 
11 

My hero in all of this and many other issues, Dr. Martin Luther 

King, Jr., strongly supported the work of Margaret Sanger, 

Planned Parenthood’s founder, and emphasized the importance of 

access to family planning resources for African-Americans. 

On accepting the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood in 1966, Dr. King stated, and I quote, and as I conclude, 

‘‘There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret 

Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions 

of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by 

cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist, a non-violent 

resister. African-Americans have no mere academic nor ordinary 

interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.’’ 

My friends, I concur with Dr. King and reject the sponsor’s preposterous and offensive argument that legalized abortion and its 

providers are racist. 

And I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and I am 

concluded at this point. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. And without objection, 

the other Members’ opening statements will be made part of the 

record. 

And before I introduce the witnesses, it looks like they have 

called votes on us and I cannot imagine that the leadership would 

dare call a vote without checking with us first, but that is what 

they have done. So we will be breaking momentarily, but before we 

break I would first like to ask for unanimous consent to submit 

three items for the record. 

The first is a statement prepared by Alveda King, who currently 

serves as pastoral associate and director of Civil Rights for the Unborn and for Priests for Life. She is also the daughter of Reverend 

A.D. King and the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King. She has also 

submitted to this Committee a blog post she posted on February 3, 

2014, and I am grateful for her post and for her contribution. 

Last, I would like to submit for the record a statement prepared 

by Reggie Littlejohn on sex selection abortion occurring in the 

United States and abroad and without objection it would be entered into the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Mr. FRANKS. And at this time, then, I will adjourn the Committee and we will come back and we will introduce all of you and 

proceed with testimony. I am sorry the vote is going be a little bit 

long, but we will get back as soon as we can. Thank you all, and 

we are in recess. 

[Recess] 

Mr. FRANKS. This meeting will come to order. Thank you all for 

waiting so patiently. And we will now introduce our witnesses. 

And our first witness is Catherine Davis. Ms. Davis is a founding 

member of the National Black Pro-Life Coalition, and founder and 

president of the Restoration Project. She often partners with the 

National Black Pro-Life Coalition, the Network of Politically Active 

Christians, and the Frederick Douglas Foundation, in an ongoing 

effort to educate Americans about the issues that are impacting the 

Black community. 

Our second witness is Anna Higgins. Ms. Higgins is an attorney 

and associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a research 

and education institution dedicated to bringing together physicians, 

sociologists, statisticians, and policy researchers on a wide range of 

life issues. She has previously held the position of director of the 

Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council. 

Our third witness is Miriam Yeung. Ms. Yeung is the executive 

director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, a 

multi-issue progressive organization dedicated to social justice and 

human rights for Asian, and Pacific Islander women and girls in 

the U.S. 

The 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 is Reverend Derek McCoy. Reverend McCoy is the National Clergy Relations Director for the Center of Urban Renewal and Education, a non-profit think tank dedicated to addressing the issues of race and poverty through the 

principals of faith, freedom, and personal responsibility. He previously served as the president of the Maryland Family Alliance, 

and Maryland Family Council. I just want to welcome all of you. 

Thank you for being here. 

Now, each of the witnesses written statements will be entered 

into the record in its entirety. And I would ask that each of you 

summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay 

within that time there is a timing light in front of you. The light 

will switch from green to yellow, indicating that you have 1 minute 

to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red it indicates 

that the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

And before I recognize the witness, it is the tradition of the Subcommittee that they be sworn. So, if you please stand to be sworn. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to 

give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 

so help you god? Please be seated. 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. And I would now recognize our first witness, Ms. Davis. And, 

Ms. Davis, if you pull that microphone to you and turn it on before 

beginning. 
21 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF CATHERINE DAVIS, FOUNDING CORE MEMBER, NATIONAL BLACK PRO-LIFE COALITION, AND PRESIDENT, THE RESTORATION PROJECT 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you so much for allowing me to come and address this issue, which is at the core of the reason for why the National Black Pro-Life Coalition exists. There are some in America 

today who want us to ignore the motives of organizations that have 

been targeting women of color, but we cannot. Race became an 

issue in the reproductive healthcare debate with the introduction 

of Margaret Sanger and Clarence Gamble’s Negro Project in 1939 

that sought to bring about a major birthrate reduction among 

American Negroes. 

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has never renounced this project, and we believe it is in operation today. In 

fact, Alan Guttmacher, the president of Planned Parenthood from 

1962 to 1974 was a eugenicist. And, for a time, his presidency at 

Planned Parenthood overlapped his vice-presidency at the American Eugenics Society that championed racial betterment, eugenic 

health, and genetic education. 

It was with this ideology that he guided the organization into the 

era of abortion on demand. In the Roe v. Wade decision, Mr. Justice 

Blackman said, ‘‘In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, 

and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the 

problem.’’ Without explanation for why the court felt it important 

to mention this in the opinion, it was this statement that introduced race and population control into abortion practices. 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 2009 New York 

Times magazine interview seemed to confirm race was an issue, 

when she said, ‘‘She had thought that at the time Roe v. Wade was 

decided there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations we do not want too many of.’’ 

No one doubted that the population they did not want too many 

of were the Negroes in Planned Parenthood’s Negro Project. The 

march toward controlling the Black birth rate through abortion has 

accelerated, and larger and larger surgical abortion facilities are 

being erected in densely populated Black and Latino neighborhoods. A 2012 study completed by Protecting Black Life of Cincinnati, Ohio revealed that more than 79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical centers are located within a two-mile walking radius of a Black or Latino neighborhood. 

In their 2008/2009 tax filing, Planned Parenthood acknowledged 

their mission is to achieve a United States population of stable 

size. One example of the tools that they use to achieve that goal 

is found in the certificate of public need submitted to the Virginia 

Department of Health in 2012. Planned Parenthood of Virginia 

Beach cited Black infant and maternal mortality rates to justify 

the construction of a third surgical room where they could terminate up to 1,800 babies each year. 

In hearings for a PRENDA-like bill in Georgia in 2010, a young 

White female testified that she had gotten pregnant at age 14 by 

a Black male. Her mother forced her to abort the child, stating that 
22 

she could not bring that little Black so-and-so into her home. Despite telling every worker in the Augusta, Georgia Planned Parenthood, including the doctor, that she wanted her child they aborted 

her baby. 

Margo Davidson, a Black Pennsylvania Democrat, was endorsed 

by Planned Parenthood in her 2010 race for the State House. Ms. 

Davidson’s cousin, Semika Shaw, was 5 months pregnant, and she 

died after a botched abortion in Gosnell’s center. When Davidson 

chose to vote to close the regulatory loophole, Planned Parenthood 

withdrew their support and fielded a candidate to run against her. 

In 2012, an abortion doctor in Charlotte, North Carolina publically stated his motive for doing abortions was ‘‘to keep ugly 

Black babies from being born, and a burden to taxpayers.’’ 

We are asking that the Congress take action to provide relief 

through enacting PRENDA. Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:] 
23 

Prepared Statement of Catherine Davis, Founding Core Member, 

National Black Profile Coalition, and President, The Restoration Project 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you Ms. Davis. I now recognize our second 

witness, Ms. Higgins. And, Ms. Higgins, if you will pull that microphone toward you and make sure that it is on. 

TESTIMONY OF ANNA HIGGINS, J.D., ASSOCIATE SCHOLAR, 

CHARLOTTE LOZIER INSTITUTE 

Ms. HIGGINS. All right. Here we go. Mr. Chairman Franks, Ranking Member Cohen, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I am grateful to have asked by the Subcommittee to 

testify today in support of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 

2016, or H.R. 4924. 

Passing this bill is a necessary and proactive step in the fight to 

end gender inequality domestically and abroad. Many people in the 

United States assume that sex discrimination has been all but 

eliminated here. Yet, a violent form of sex discrimination in the 

form of sex selective abortion, practiced on girls in particular, is 

still permitted within our boarders. 

Sex selective abortion is choosing to abort a preborn child based 

solely on that child’s sex. Any discrimination against a unique 

human individual based on sex alone constitutes sex discrimination, and it cannot stand. Congress has the opportunity here, 

through the passage of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act to prohibit the discriminatory practice of sex selective abortion, thereby 

confirming the fact that women have the same inherent civil and 

human rights as men. 

I intend to testify to the existence of sex discrimination through 

sex selective abortion, the seriousness of it, and the justifications 

in enacting this bill. My comments are condensed from my extensive research paper just published by Charlotte Lozier Institute 

this week. The findings on sex selective abortion in this bill are 

quite extensive, and I think they highlight the prevalence of the 

problem here in the United States, and the problem globally of sex 

discrimination against girls via abortion. 

Ban on sex selective abortion to protect girls, in particular from 

the practice of gendercide. We know that studies show that at conception and at birth the ratio of males to females, naturally, biologically, is about equal. 

Additionally, there is little to no variation in sex ratios in relation to maternal race or age. So, any kind of skewed sex ratio at 

birth cannot be explained away by natural variations. There are 

well documented practices of infanticide and sex selective abortion 

of female children, and that has resulted in upwards of 160 million 

missing girls across the globe. 

So, what we are saying here is it is affecting the human society 

in general. Sex selection in favor of males is known to be a problem 

in certain cultures based on the idea of son preference, but the 

practice of son preference is not limited to certain cultures or countries. In fact, European countries have numbers similar to that 

skewed numbers of China and India, particularly the Caucasus. 

Opponents of these bans will claim that this precaution is not 

needed, because the ratio is balanced in the United States overall. 

That balanced ratio belies the fact that Western nations such as 

the U.K. and the U.S. have seen a spike in sex ratio imbalance 

within certain subpopulations inside our own borders. Studies have 
30 

shown that. And another two studies out of Canada came out this 

week confirming those very numbers in extreme sex imbalance ratios. 

Additionally, we have a lot of commercial advertisements. I saw 

three websites this week that advertise in the United States finding out the gender of your child as early as 10 weeks gestation for 

the purpose of family balancing. There’s no way to family balance 

past pregnancy without sex selective abortion. 

The abysmal state of abortion reporting data does not allow us, 

in the United States, to have exact numbers. But the question before us is not, ‘‘What are the exact numbers?’’ The question before 

us is whether any abortion done for reasons of sex selection is permissible in light of our tradition, and laws protecting persons from 

discrimination based on sex alone. 

The American public overwhelmingly supports bans on sex selective abortion, because they understand this violates American tradition of holding up the idea that women and men are equal under 

the law, and should be thusly protected. Sex discrimination 

through sex selective abortion is a violent form of sex discrimination, and needs to be eliminated, not just globally, but also here in 

the United States. 

We have seen Congress say that this is not permissible practice 

overseas. We have seen Secretary of State Clinton, the United Nations, all come out against sex selective abortion. But, if we do not 

address this here, we have no right to address it elsewhere. So, we 

must accept that this occurs globally. And Congress can take their 

first step in eliminating the reprehensive practice of discriminating 

against women by banning sex selective abortion here in the 

United States, and thereby retain its moral authority to say, ‘‘This 

should not happen anywhere.’’ Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Higgins follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Higgins. And we now recognize Ms. 

Yeung. 

TESTIMONY OF MIRIAM YEUNG, MPA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

THE NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN’S FORUM 

Ms. YEUNG. Thank you for allowing me to testify before you 

today. I lead the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, 

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

movement for social justice and human rights for Asian American 

and Pacific Islander women and girls in the United States. On behalf of NAPAWF and the dozens of women’s rights reproductive 

justice and civil rights groups that stand with me, I strongly urge 

the Members of this Congress to oppose the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2016. 

This bill represents a duplicitous attempt to address racial and 

gender discrimination, while actually intending to chip away at 

abortion rights. Not only does this legislation call into question a 

woman’s motives for seeking abortion care, it is especially punishing in the precedent it would set, forcing doctors to scrutinize 

a woman because of her race or ethnicity. The decision to seek 

abortion care should be up to a woman with her doctor and her 

family, not politicians. The majority of Americans support this 

value, and believe that a woman knows what is best for her and 

her family. 

In a 2015 poll by Hart Research Associates, 65 percent Americans say that Congress should not be spending time debating and 

passing a sex selective abortion ban. I encourage Members of the 

Subcommittee to support racial equality in a real way, by addressing healthcare disparities in communities of color, and protecting 

the sanctity of the doctor/patient relationship by supporting open, 

honest communication with one’s medical provider. 

This bill forces doctors to act as police interrogators in the exam 

room, ultimately making women more reluctant to share their personal experiences for fear of their private information being made 

public. When medically accurate, safe, and nonjudgmental patient 

counseling is taken away, women, especially those most vulnerable 

to domestic violence or trafficking, lose the chance to get the help 

she needs. 

This bill perpetuates the offensive stereotype that Black women 

are unable to make reproductive health decisions for their own 

families. It accuses Black women of being irresponsible and worse, 

intentionally deselecting babies who share their own race. Black 

women choose abortion care more often than other communities do 

because of a well-documented, disproportionate lack of access to 

contraception. This legislation does nothing to address the root 

causes of unintended pregnancies or historically rooted inequalities 

within these communities. 

In February of 2016, Black women leaders came together in solidarity to affirm Black women’s autonomy, and reject legislation 

like PRENDA that relies on racist claims about Black mothers. In 

their own words, Monica Raye Simpson, director of the Trust Black 

Women Partnership said, ‘‘Bans on abortion based on race rely on 

anti-Black and anti-immigrant stereotypes about women of color, 

and constitutes a direct assault on Black motherhood. 
42 

We must remember that this legislation has its origins in the 

billboards put up here in Atlanta and around the country attacking 

Black mothers and stigmatizing our decisions about pregnancy, 

billboards we fought and successfully saw removed.’’ Alicia Garza, 

cofounder of Black Lives Matter said, ‘‘We absolutely have to make 

sure that reproductive justice, and reproductive freedom is part of 

the narrative of what it takes to make Black lives matter.’’ 

Women of color already face difficulties accessing health care and 

have poorer health outcomes. Black women are more likely to die 

from preventable pregnancy related causes than White women, and 

their unintended pregnancy rate is higher than any other ethnic or 

racial group. Vietnamese women are five times more likely to die 

from cervical cancer than White women. High levels of poverty already prevent Asian American women and other women of color 

from accessing health care every day. Unfortunately, PRENDA 

would make healthcare outcomes for women of color even worse. 

This legislation also perpetuates the offensive stereotype that 

Asian American families do not value the lives of their girl children, while also not addressing the issue of sex selection by ignoring substantive policy to alleviate the root causes of son preference 

or gender inequity. While sex selection is an issue abroad, the U.S. 

is not China or India. In the U.S. researchers have found that 

there is not a widespread issue and, in fact, Asian Americans are 

actually having more girls on average than White Americans are. 

Gender inequity cannot be solved by banning abortion. An interagency U.N. statement addressing sex selection and gender discrimination clearly explains 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.’’ Aruna Papp, the Canadian advocate, cited in the findings, 

concurs with this opinion, and has submitted written testimony opposed to PRENDA for the harm it will do to women. 

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. NAPAWF and others 

are working with members of our own community to empower 

women and girls, thereby challenging norms and transforming values. We cannot help women by taking away women’s rights. We 

cannot eliminate racism by relying on racist assumptions. 

I welcome all Members of Congress to pass legislation that truly 

results in racial justice and gender equality. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Yeung follows:] 
43 

Prepared Statement of Miriam Yeung, MPA, 

National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) 
44 
45 
46 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you Ms. Yeung. And I would now—Reverend 

McCoy please. 

Rev. MCCOY. Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. Let’s pull that microphone up close to you, sir, and 

make sure it is on. 

Rev. MCCOY. It is on. Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. Okay, sir. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF DEREK McCOY, REVEREND. NATIONAL CLERGY RELATIONS DIRECTOR, CENTER OF URBAN RENEWAL 

AND EDUCATION 

Rev. MCCOY. Chairman Franks, Ranking Member Cohen, and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. I serve as the national director of CURE. 

But, really, we represent over 1,000 voices across the country. Our 

work is to fight poverty and be voices of the underserved by helping them apply principals of faith, freedom, and personal responsibility. I also serve on two boards that support pregnancy centers 

as well. 

I come today to offer my strong support and endorsement for 

H.R. 4924, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act. Like many liberals 

in the Black community, I too believe that Black lives do matter. 

But, I think that the passage of H.R. 4924 would codify this notion 

into law by not forcing and allowing for race selective abortions. As 

tragic as all the violent deaths are within the Black community 

and cities like Chicago, Baltimore, D.C., they pale in comparison to 

the murders that are taking place within the wombs of Black 

women every day throughout our Nation. 

The rise of feticide in the world is astronomical. On the global 

front, we are virtually watching and observing entire countries 

alter birth rates and normal balance of population and gender due 

to sex selective abortions. My support for this legislation is not only 

based on my deep personal thankfulness for being born to a Black 

woman, or my conviction as an African American male that deplores discrimination, or as a citizen of the country that does not 

want to see sex discrimination, but a citizen who deeply desires the 

same protections be afforded to them by the Constitution be given 

to all including the preborn. 

My support also comes as a father, and a man who sees the destruction of lives and have heard from and counseled the women 

who had to deal with the emotional and physical consequences of 

having lived with the gut-wrenching termination of a pregnancy. 

Creating a life is an ultimate gift from god. What we do with that 

life is our gift back to god. 

The passage of H.R. 4924 would help ensure that we do not run 

short of the gifts that we give back to god. As stated years ago by 

the, then pro-life, Reverend Jesse Jackson in January 1977, ‘‘Politicians argue for abortion largely because they do not want to spend 

the necessary money to feed, clothe, or educate more people. Here 

arguments for inconvenience and economic savings take precedence 

over for human value and human life. 

Psychiatrists, social workers, and doctors often argue for abortion 

on the basis that the child will grow up mentally and emotionally 

scarred. But who of us is complete?’’ he asked. ‘‘If incompleteness 
47 

were the criterion for taking on life, would we all be dead? If we 

can justify abortion on the basis of emotional incompleteness, then 

your logic could also lead you to killing others for other forms of 

incompleteness as well, such as blindness, crippledness, or old age.’’ 

And I would add to that, race and/or gender. 

Abortion based on sex selection, race selection, or gender selection is antithetical to our civilized society. If it is illegal to murder 

based on sex, race, or gender, would it not be equally illegal to 

murder a child in the womb based on these same characteristics? 

So, this issue of nondiscrimination brings us back to even what my 

colleague Ms. Davis said about eugenics. 

Ultimately, a Nation will be judged on how they protect the most 

vulnerable in their society. My job here today is simple, to be a 

voice to the thousands of Americans that want to see the Constitution applied to the least of these in our society. When one thinks 

about aborting a child based on race, sex, or gender, many of us 

reel with disgust because we have seen the effects of such actions 

in countries like China and other parts of the world where they 

have a shortage of females; that has become a national security 

issue. China does not even have enough females for males to 

marry. So, Chinese males are leaving the country, causing a labor 

shortage, but also causing a national identity problem. 

When I think about selective abortions, I cannot help but be reminded about eugenics, and the Black community has been one of 

the most hard hit for the plight of abortions in our communities. 

About 50 years ago a sociologist, who was also the Secretary of 

Labor, named Daniel Patrick Moynihan, stated that these trends in 

the Black community began to change. The Black family at that 

time had intact families with 78 percent of households having a 

mom and a dad. 

Abortion in our community was not common, and was unthinkable. However, the astute eye of Moynihan saw the scrubbing of 

our society by god by eliminating prayer in schools in 1963, had 

started to take effects on the collapse of the family. Marriages 

began breaking down. And by 1965 we had an all-out war on poverty and began the welfare state. 

In the 1960’s we allowed unchecked sexual freedom to get out of 

control, and women’s rights group like NOW began influencing 

NAACP to push for abortions in Black communities under the 

guise of reducing poverty and the population. Blacks were told, if 

we were controlled births, we would also escape poverty. Black 

women were seduced into this lie and are now living with the results of 16 million killed since Roe v. Wade, which took place in 

1973, a mere 5 years after King’s death. 

It is ironic that the Fifth Amendment in 1870 to the U.S. Constitution abolished discrimination based on race. A more civilized 

1973 U.S. Supreme Court discriminated against the life of the unborn. In closing, I would like to invite each Member to support this 

legislation. Think long and hard about the America we want to 

pass along to the next generation a social experiment of genetic engineering at the hands of those who choose who wins and who loses 

in life. Come to my city. Meet some of the women who have indeed 

had counseling after having an abortion. I invite you. Thank you 

for your time. 
48 

[The prepared statement of Rev. McCoy follows:] 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Reverend McCoy. We will now proceed under the 5 minute rule with questions. And I will begin by 

recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Davis, I will begin with you, if it is all right. Now, there are 

critics who say that PRENDA has a much larger agenda. In fact, 

I think in Ms. Yeung’s testimony she states that ‘‘this bill represents a duplicitous attempt to address racial and gender discrimination.’’ 

The challenge I have with that is that somehow protecting an 

unborn child from being aborted on the basis of race, that is racism. But taking the life of an unborn child on the basis of race is 

not racism. And protecting a little girl from being aborted because 

she is a little girl rather than a little boy, that is gender discrimination; but taking the life of a little girl because she is a little girl 

instead of a little boy, that is not gender discrimination. 

And that is hard for me to understand. Is your testimony intended to be a duplicitous attempt to address racial and gender discrimination? Is that your testimony? 

Ms. DAVIS. There is no duplicity here. And, in all honesty, Congressman, I am, along with the National Black Pro-Life Coalition, 

working to end the targeting of the Black community. It is an allout war. It truly is, because we are being targeted. And Planned 

Parenthood is behind that targeting. Here in Congress, in 2012, the 

Black Congressional Caucus, the women of the Black Congressional 

Caucus, and the Pro-Life Caucus hosted an event that was funded 

by the Ford Foundation, on whose board Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, sits. And, in that forum, they were 

training people, the attendees, on how to get around the message 

that the billboards that went up in 2010 in Georgia, which I was 

a part of that initiative: how to get around that message. 

And they gave them five particular points that included changing 

the conversation and challenging the pro-life community on why 

they are trying to make the disparities in health care worse. They 

told them to change the conversation and talk about access to 

health care, that Black women lack access to health care. 

Well, number one, abortion is not health care. And abortion all 

across this country is maiming and wounding women, and actually 

killing them like Tonya Reaves who was killed in a Planned Parenthood at 18 South Michigan Avenue in Chicago, when they 

botched the abortion and left her laying there for more than 5 

hours bleeding before they sought emergency help too little too 

late. 

So, the racial component that PRENDA would provide would 

have allowed the family of Tonya Reaves, the dad of the baby, and 

grandparents to pursue Planned Parenthood who was operating 

their Negro Project when they killed Tonya’s 5-month-old baby and 

Tonya. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, ma’am. Ms. Higgins, I am about out of 

time here, but in light of the Supreme Court’s decision and reasoning in Gonzales v. Carhart, they talked about protecting the 

health of the mother, and also the government interest in protecting the reputation in the medical community, preserving the integrity and ethics of the medical profession, and promoting societal 

respect for unborn life. What arguments do you believe could be 
56 

*Note: The material submitted by Ms. Chu is not printed in this hearing record but is on 

file with the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104783 

made in favor of PRENDA, prohibition of both discriminatory abortions and coerced abortions based on that decision? 

Ms. HIGGINS. Based on Gonzales v. Carhart, you are correct, Mr. 

Chairman, in saying that this was a ban on a partial birth abortion. So, that is one practice of abortion. Okay. So, what we are 

looking at here is a ban on a single reason for an elective abortion 

that is a single discriminatory reason. 

So, what the courts did here in Gonzales is they upheld that prohibition, whether it was pre-viability or post-viability, it did not 

matter. And the health exception of the mother was not included, 

because they said, ‘‘There is an alternative.’’ There is an alternative to this partial birth abortion, so there is no reason the State 

cannot prohibit this one practice. 

So, this is analogous in that all you are doing is prohibiting one 

reason, or availability of obtaining an elective abortion that does 

not implicate the health of the mother. So, it does not present an 

undue burden standard under Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which 

is where we look to our abortion jurisprudence standard. And they 

also said that the State have an interest in regulating abortion if 

they are instituting a mechanism that shows a profound respect for 

life, which this bill does. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Higgins. I thank all of you. And I 

will now recognize Mr. Deutch for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin I would 

like to yield 45 seconds to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you Congressman Deutch for yielding. I want to 

thank Miriam Yeung for testifying today, and her leadership on 

issues affecting the Asian American and Pacific Islander or AAPI 

community. 

As chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus, and as an 

Asian American woman, I am extremely disappointed and deeply 

disturbed to see that PRENDA is once again before this Subcommittee. And I will continue to voice my strong opposition to the 

racist and sexist nature of this bill. I request that my full written 

statement be entered into the record. 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection. 

Ms. CHU. And I also request that three documents be entered 

into the record. The first is a letter from leading reproductive justice organizations in the U.S., which represents the very women of 

color this bill claims to protect, unequivocally condemning this legislation. 

The second is a letter from the AAPI reproductive justice community, and expresses deep concerns about the dangerous stereotypes 

that the bill perpetuates about the AAPI community, which could 

lead to the racial profiling of AAPI women. 

Finally, the third is a letter from Aruna Papp, whose testimony 

is included in the text of PRENDA, and who states that her research has been fundamentally misrepresented and misconstrued, 

and that PRENDA would only further harm women who are victims of domestic violence. Thank you. And I yield back.* 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. Without objection. 
57 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for holding 

this hearing. Discrimination based on sex and gender bias are huge 

and pervasive problems. As the father of two daughters, I want to 

work toward a world for them that treats them and their brother 

fairly on the merits of their arguments and their actions, rather 

than with prejudgments or bias. Our biases about the proper roles 

of women are so completely pervasive that it feels difficult to even 

know where to begin. 

And while we see examples of gender bias in real life problems, 

like pay inequality, glass ceilings, the actual problem is so much 

deeper. From the way we react to girls and boys differently, to the 

very language we use to describe similar behaviors, these biases 

are deeply ingrained in our culture. 

We even see evidence of this deep seeded bias in the type of futures we as parents imagine for our children. And women experience this bias every day. Will their appearance be valued more 

than their ideas? Will they be viewed as unprofessional for speaking up and for defending their ideas? Will they be targeted on social media with threats of violence? Will they be able to attend college without fear of sexual assault? And will they be heard when 

they say, ‘‘No?’’ 

With a problem so pervasive, there is no easy fix. Bringing an 

end to sexism and gender bias requires us to address the root cause 

of inequality. This means investing in preventative healthcare programs, science based sex education, economic empowerment efforts, 

and supporting fair housing and employment practices. The most 

obvious symptom of gender bias is the continuing pay disparity between men and women in the workplace. Two days ago we finally 

had Equal Pay Day, April 12. April 12 represented how far into the 

year of 2016 women work to earn as much pay as men. 

Women are paid 79 cents for every dollar a man is paid, and the 

gap is even worse for women of color. At that rate, when we are 

currently moving toward closing the pay gap, women will still be 

waiting for a dollar to mean a dollar 44 years from now. My college 

age daughters will be approaching their retirement. This is the 

fundamental problem. The ripple effects that working families, 

whose wages have barely budged since the 1990’s, and while pay 

stays flat costs soar for housing, for childcare, for education, just 

to name a few. 

Unequal pay contributes to broader issues of economic inequality 

and the disappearing middle class. So, it is good. It really, really 

is good to see a bill start off with an affirmation of the basic truth 

that women are a vital part of American society and culture, and 

possess the same fundamental human rights and civil rights as 

men. And I hope that we as a Congress can work to live up to the 

promises underlying that basic truth, the promise of education, the 

promise of access to health care, the promise of justice for victims 

of sexual assault, the promise of equal employment opportunities, 

and the promise of finally closing the inexcusable pay gap. 

It is a shame that this Subcommittee’s attempt to confront the 

serious issue of sex discrimination and gender bias is nothing more 

than this Committee telling women what they can and cannot do 

with their bodies again. The United States Constitution protects a 
58 

woman’s right to make the personal, private decision to have an 

abortion, and pretending that this bill is anything other than an 

attempt to undermine and weaken that constitutionally protected 

right is a farce. And, for that reason, I have no questions, and I 

yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. We will take a second round 

here so that you folks have been so kind to stick around for a 

while. You know, I have heard a lot here about types of discrimination and gender inequity. And those are all issues that I am deeply 

concerned about. But it occurs to me that if a little girl is aborted 

before she is born, based on the fact that she is a little girl rather 

than a little boy that it then becomes impossible to reach any other 

area of discrimination that might have occurred in the life she 

might have had. 

Sometimes it is good to come back to earth here a little bit. We 

are talking around the issue. And, Ms. Higgins, I wonder if you 

would do us all the favor of saying, specifically in fairly simple 

terms that those of us who are not lawyers can understand, what 

does this bill actually do? 

Ms. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically, this bill—it 

does a couple things. First of all, what you said is, ‘‘The reason we 

are addressing this sex selective abortion in this PRENDA bill, the 

importance of addressing that, is that it is taking a holistic view.’’ 

This is the most lethal form of sex discrimination that is practiced 

globally, and in the United States. It has to be addressed. 

Not only am I saying this, but it is something that we have seen 

former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton say, that we as the U.S. 

must lead the way to promote women’s rights and women’s equality, in reference to infanticide and sex selective abortions. 

Nobuko Horibe, who is the director of the U.N. Population Fund 

on Asia and Pacific regional office said, ‘‘We have to give priority 

to programs like PRENDA that foster norms’’; she did not say, ‘‘like 

PRENDA,’’ but that is my statement there; ‘‘that foster norms in 

an attitude of zero tolerance for discrimination such as prenatal 

sex selection.’’ 

Gender equality is at the very heart of each country’s successful 

development. Zero tolerance of sex discrimination necessarily involves banning the practice of sex selective abortion. The government has a compelling interest in protecting anyone, whether it is 

male or female, from any instance of sex discrimination. That is a 

compelling interest. 

And we know that a compelling interest would require that the 

government have an exceedingly persuasive justification to survive 

Constitutional scrutiny. Whereas, in abortion jurisprudence, you do 

not even get to the fundamental rights language. But you do in sex 

selection, because it amounts to discrimination. And we see that in 

the Civil Rights Act. 

The Civil Rights Act was, basically, also applied to private individuals who discriminate. So, it is in fact a very important government interest. It is a compelling interest. And when we say that 

PRENDA is not necessary, why are we setting—we are saying it 

is not necessary here, because we do not have that many sex selective abortions. Well, it happens here. 
59 

So, what PRENDA does is eliminate that practice. What we are 

saying is, ‘‘There are no tolerable levels of lethal sex discrimination 

against girls.’’ There is no tolerable level, whether it is one or 1 

million. It is not acceptable. The 14th Amendment guarantees everyone equal protection under the law. That is a compelling government interest that we must protect. We must take a holistic view. 

And it includes banning sex selective abortion. Otherwise, we cannot be a moral authority overseas and tell people they cannot do 

it, if we do. 

So, the second thing PRENDA does, I think, that is important is 

it allows women—and we know there are documented instances of 

women in communities around this country in the United States 

who are coerced into having sex selective abortions against their 

will. So, what PRENDA does, it allows that woman an out. It allows them a civil remedy against anyone who has coerced them to 

have an abortion against their will based on the reasons of sex selection. So, it empowers women to know that the government 

stands behind them in protecting them from this practice. 

So, I think those are the two main things PRENDA does, and I 

think that they are justified under the Constitution. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Higgins. And, Reverend McCoy, I 

will turn to you. You know, I heard again today some concerns 

about the gender pay gap, and I understand that concern. But, you 

know, in this case we are trying to—and essentially address a gender survival gap, you know, whether or not these children survive 

or not. And, unfortunately, across the world, one of the most lethal 

phrases that you can imagine anymore is, ‘‘It is a girl.’’ 

And I wonder, you know, there was a famous Democrat running 

for president, Mr. Humphrey, that said, you know, that, ‘‘Society 

will be judged by how it treats those in the dawn of life, those in 

the shadows of life, and those in the twilight of life.’’ And you say 

something along those lines in your testimony. ‘‘A Nation will be 

judged on how they protect the most vulnerable of their society.’’ 

In your opinion, how well have we done that? 

Rev. MCCOY. Thank you, Chairman Franks. You know, in my 

opinion, we are living, you know, in a moral crisis. We are living 

in a place where—you know, I am 100 percent at the place where 

many of the other Members already talked about. ‘‘Hey. We want 

to make sure that we talk about equal pay. We want to make sure 

that we are taking care of many of the people and having these 

concerns that we are closing the pay equity gap, and making sure 

that we are taking care of women from their healthcare needs,’’ 

and an assortment of issues. 

But, to answer your question directly, we are at a place where 

I do not think we have done well in allowing the most unprotected 

to have protections, and that is that child that is preborn. That is 

that child that is in the mother’s womb. That should not be the 

most dangerous place for a child. 

Now, interesting enough, many people say, and they talk regularly. And I hear this all the time, especially being a male, about, 

‘‘Well, I am taking away a woman’s right.’’ And I hear that. But 

I will say this. I so appreciate the right that I had to be born. And 

I do not think any person here would ever say that they are mis-
60 

taking, or they are sorrowful about being able to be born, being 

able to have Constitutional protections given to them. 

And I think that is where we are today in saying we need to 

make sure that we are taking care of those that are most vulnerable in society, in that they should have those protections, and that 

they should be taken care of; and that is the preborn. So, thank 

you for this legislation. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you Reverend McCoy, and Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will yield to Ms. Chu 

for some questions. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you so much, Congressman Deutch, for yielding. 

I am just astounded that this bill would force a doctor to make a 

decision about whether a woman is using sex selection or race selection. And, if he makes the wrong choice, or she, that doctor 

would end up potentially serving up to 5 years in prison. Not only 

that, that they would have to show their suspicion that such a 

thing could happen. Even if they suspect such a thing, they have 

to report that to the authorities. 

So, Ms. Yeung, what kind of effect do you think this legislation 

will have on a woman’s relationship with her doctor, particularly 

if she is a woman of color, and how do you think this will affect 

the healthcare outcomes for women? 

Ms. YEUNG. Thank you for that question. This has a chilling effect on relationships between doctors and patients. I want to lift up 

the testimony submitted by members of the healthcare providers 

who wrote, ‘‘PRENDA is written so broadly that a patient’s simple 

comments, ’we hope it is a girl,’ could put a health professional at 

risk of incarceration should they not report the conversation to law 

enforcement.’’ 

I believe, and I have members who have testified, that this leads 

to racial profiling in the office, that they feel judged when they 

walk into the doctor’s office. And that is not the kind of care that 

we need. Ultimately, you cannot talk about abortion rights without 

talking about women. And I want to lift up that there are women 

in this room who have chosen to have abortions. Women choose to 

have abortions. And we have to trust women in each of their own 

decisions. Criminalizing doctors punishes women. There is no doubt 

about it. 

Ms. CHU. Now, do you think that there could be some son preference in some segments of the Asian American community? And 

is there a more effective way to address these issues wherever they 

remain? And I know that in South Korea there was some different 

kinds of approaches to this that show that the answer might possibly not be PRENDA. 

Ms. YEUNG. That is right. In the international context, all the experts have documented that lifting the status, the economic and social status of women and girls addresses the root causes of gender 

inequity, which cause son preference. 

To your first point, I do want to enter record that, you know, 

after the first time we had this conversation in 2011, there was research in the Asian American community where we polled over 

6,000 Asian Americans speaking in 10 different Asian languages, 

that is disaggregatable by top API ethnicities. 
61 

And so, to your answer, who prefers sons? About 4 percent of 

Asian Americans overall. Who prefers girls? About 4 percent of 

Asian Americans overall. And who has no preference at all? 91 percent. And plus or minus 7 is the kind of, you know, range in this 

research. 

The reality is it is a racist stereotype against Asian Americans 

that we have a preference for girls or boys. 

Ms. CHU. And do you think passing legislation that erodes a 

woman’s Constitutional right to choose is the most effective means 

of ensuring that women are able to freely and independently make 

the important and deeply personal decision about when to start a 

family? 

Ms. YEUNG. No. I mean, again, we have to trust women. Women 

are an important part of this equation that has gotten lost in this 

conversation. You cannot help women by taking her rights away, 

just fundamentally is nonsensical. Instead, I think this Committee 

has so many opportunities to do a lot of work to lift up women’s 

rights. Today is the fight for 15. We know that one in three Asian 

American women make less than $15 an hour. That would be a significant improvement in a woman’s life. 

Ms. CHU. And given the disparities in access to quality health 

care that exists in communities of color and low income communities, what steps can Congress do to improve women’s access to 

health care? How can Congress support women, particularly in low 

income communities who make decisions regarding their health 

and family planning under economic stress? 

Ms. YEUNG. Health care access is an enormously important issue, 

and close to my heart. I think culturally competent accessible care, 

including comprehensive reproductive health care is a necessity for 

our communities, and one that women of color have always led the 

fight for. I want to quote a statement by the National Political Congress of Black Women in 1989. 

They said, ‘‘We understand why African American women risked 

their lives then, and why they seek safe legal abortions now. It has 

been a matter of survival. Hunger and homelessness, inadequate 

housing and income to properly provide for themselves and their 

children. Family instability, rape, incest, abuse, too young, too old, 

too sick, too tired, emotional, physical, mental, economic, social; the 

reasons for not carrying a pregnancy to term are endless and varied, personal, urgent, and private. And for all these pressing reasons, African American women, once again, will be among the first 

force to risk their lives if abortion is made illegal.’’ 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I would yield my time to the Chair. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you Mr. Jordan. You know, I think it probably is important to remind ourselves what the bill here before us 

really does. It says that, ‘‘In America you cannot discriminate 

against an innocent unborn child by subjecting them to an abortion 

based on their race or sex.’’ We protect people in employment decisions. We protect people in housing decisions. All kinds of things 

based on race or sex. But when we try to protect little babies from 

being killed on the basis of race or sex, rather than that being the 

center of the debate, we get all these other kinds of discussions. 
62 

And I would just suggest to you that, if taking the life of a little 

baby because it is a little girl instead of a little boy—if that is not 

wrong, then I do not know what is wrong. I mean, I would be open 

to hearing suggestions. If deliberately targeting a minority community and seeing that community devastated as a result—if that is 

not wrong, then I do not what is wrong. 

Sooner or later, this country will have a time of reflection because future generations will see this change, just as we did in 

some of the past tragedies. And whatever time we spent ourselves 

will either be judged in the eyes of history or the eyes of eternity. 

And I want to thank all of you for coming here. And I would like 

to ask Ms. Davis if she has a final thought. 

Ms. DAVIS. I do, sir. I am deeply saddened sitting in this proceeding today. There is a quote that is attributed to Maya Angelou, 

and it says, ‘‘When someone tells you who they are, believe them.’’ 

Planned Parenthood has made very plain that they are operating 

a Negro Project in this country that is targeting Black women to 

lure them into their abortion centers in order to control the Black 

birth rate. This bill is not an attack on the woman. It is an opportunity to hold organizations like Planned Parenthood accountable 

for targeting children based on the color of their skin, and hold all 

of the abortionists accountable for targeting children based on their 

gender. 

To hear the information being twisted as if this bill is somehow 

attacking a woman and denying her the right to self-determine her 

reproductive life is just a travesty. And I pray that this Committee 

and the Congress would take the—why does abortion get an exception that no other business, no other industry gets? If any other industry showed the kind of data that we can find very clearly documented on what Planned Parenthood is doing, Black people, White 

people, would be up in arms to shut them down. 

Abortion should not be given a pass to target a woman based on 

the color of their skin as Planned Parenthood has told us they are 

doing. They told us that in the testimony on them selling body 

parts that they are reaching women of color. And it is a travesty 

that anyone elected to office would allow that kind of open discrimination against a group of people in this country to happen. 

And I pray that before we end up where we were when John 

Lewis got clocked on the head on the Pettus Bridge, and those four 

babies were killed in Birmingham, and Emmitt Till was tortured 

to death because of the color of his skin, that we would stop this 

travesty and stop Planned Parenthood from being able to target 

women of color. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Davis. 

Ms. YEUNG. May I comment on that? 

Mr. FRANKS. I am sorry, Ms. Yeung. I did not call on you. We 

are about out of time here. This is my time. 

Ms. YEUNG. There are 25 minutes. I would like to make a comment, if you would, Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Ma’am, this is my time. I guess, the real question 

here is does the abortion really kill a little child? 

Ms. YEUNG. What is the role of women in this conversation? 

Mr. FRANKS. If it does not, then I am through talking about it. 

But if it does, then those of us in this room, whether we know it 
63 

or not, are standing in the midst of the greatest human genocide 

in the history of humanity. And history will not only reflect that, 

the posterity—— 

Ms. YEUNG. Black women are not the genocidal actors. You are 

accusing Black women of murdering their own people. 

Mr. FRANKS. Somehow the notion of protecting little girls because they are not as—somehow, that you think that, somehow, 

that it is okay to take the life of a little girl because she is a little 

girl instead of a little boy. If that is your position, I think it speaks 

for itself. 

And, with that, it concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to all of our 

witnesses, and Ms. Yeung, thanks to you for attending. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for their witnesses, or additional materials for the record. And I thank the witnesses, and I 

thank the Members, and I thank the audience. And, with that, this 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(65) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
66 

Addendum to the Prepared Statement of Derek McCoy, Reverend, National 

Clergy Relations Director, Center of Urban Renewal and Education 
67 
68 
69 
70 

f 
71 

*Note: The Subcommittee did not receive a response from this witness in time for 

its inclusion in this hearing record. 

Question for the Record submitted to Miriam Yeung, MPA, Executive 

Director, The National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum* 
72 

f 
73 

Prepared Statement of Steven M. Mosher, President, 

Population Research Institute 
74 
75 

f 
76 

Prepared Statement of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s 

Forum (NAPAWF) 
77 
78 
79 
80 

f