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

81–175 PDF 2013

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAIN-CAPABLE 

UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION 

AND CIVIL JUSTICE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 1797 

MAY 23, 2013 

Serial No. 113–19 

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 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

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 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

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 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

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 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

[Vacant] 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 23, 2013 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 1797, the ‘‘District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection 

Act’’ ........................................................................................................................ 4

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 Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution 

and Civil Justice ................................................................................................... 24 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 26 

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 28 

WITNESSES 

Anthony Levatino, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Las Cruces, New Mexico 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 33 

Maureen L. Condic, Ph.D., Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Utah School of Medicine 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39 

Christy Zink, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 47 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 49 

Jill L. Stanek, RN, Mokena, IL 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 50 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 53 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

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

on the Constitution and Civil Justice ................................................................. 61 

(1) 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAIN-CAPABLE 

UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT 

THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

AND CIVIL JUSTICE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Franks, Jordan, Goodlatte, Chabot, 

King, Gohmert, DeSantis, Nadler, and Conyers. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Paul Taylor, Majority Counsel; Sarah 

Vance, Clerk; (Minority) David Lachmann, Subcommittee Staff Director; 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. 

Thank you all for being here. 

I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

When innocent children are buried under the rubble caused by 

tornadoes or are shot by crazed monsters, evil monsters in schools 

or theaters, none of us consider that to be a partisan issue. Likewise, protecting pain-capable unborn babies is not a Republican 

issue or a Democrat issue. It is, rather, a test of our basic humanity and who we are as a human family. 

For the sake of all the Founding Fathers of this Nation once 

dreamed America could someday be and for the sake of all those 

since then who have died in darkness that we might all walk in 

the light of liberty, it is important for those of us who are privileged to be Members of Congress to pause from time to time and 

remind ourselves why we are really all here. 

Thomas Jefferson said the care of human life and its happiness, 

and not its destruction, is the chief and only object of good government. The phrase in the 14th Amendment and the Fifth Amendment capsulize our entire Constitution. No person shall be deprived 

of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. 

Ladies and gentlemen, protecting the lives of all Americans and 

their constitutional rights is why we are all here. The bedrock 
2 

foundation of this republic is that clarion declaration of the self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal and endowed 

by their creator with uncertain unalienable rights, the rights of life 

and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

Every conflict and every battle our Nation has ever faced can be 

traced to our commitment to this core self-evident truth. It has 

made us the beacon of hope for the entire world. It is who we are. 

Yet today, a great conundrum looms before America. When authorities entered the clinic of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, they found a torture chamber for little babies that I do not have the words or the 

stomach to adequately describe. According to the grand jury report, 

Dr. Kermit Gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies. He 

simply killed them. 

He didn’t call it that. He called it ‘‘ensuring fetal demise.’’ The 

way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors in the back 

of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called it snipping. Over the years, there were hundreds of snippings. 

Ashley Baldwin, one of Dr. Gosnell’s employees, said she saw babies breathing. She described one as 2 feet long that no longer had 

eyes or a mouth, but in her words was like ‘‘making this screeching 

noise, and it sounded like a little alien.’’ And I just wonder, for 

God’s sake, sometimes is this really who we are? 

If Dr. Gosnell had killed the children he now stands convicted of 

murdering only 5 minutes earlier and before they had passed 

through the birth canal, it would have all been perfectly legal in 

many of the United States of America. More than 325 late-term unborn babies are torturously killed without anesthesia every day in 

the land of the free and the home of the brave. 

If there is one thing that we must not miss about this unspeakably evil episode, it is that Kermit Gosnell is not an anomaly in 

this gruesome Fortune 500 enterprise of killing unborn children. 

Rather, Kermit Gosnell is actually the true face of abortion on demand in America, and every American with the slightest shred of 

compassion for the innocent should go to paincapable.com and 

learn the truth of this case and others like it for themselves. 

Not long ago, I heard Barack Obama speak very noble and poignant words that whether he knows it or not apply so profoundly to 

the real subject of this hearing. Let me quote excerpted portions of 

his comments. 

He said, ‘‘This is our first task, caring for our children. It is our 

first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. 

That is how as a society we will be judged.’’ 

The President asked the question that so many of us have asked 

for such a long time on this issue. He asked it on another issue. 

He said, ‘‘Are we really prepared to say that we are powerless in 

the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after 

year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?’’ 

Again, that sounds exactly what many of us have said for so 

many years regarding the children we are discussing here today. 

The President also said, ‘‘Our journey is not complete until all 

our children are cared for and cherished and always safe from 

harm. This is our generation’s task,’’ he said, ‘‘to make these words, 
3 

these rights, these values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness real for every American.’’ 

Never have I so deeply agreed with any words ever spoken by 

President Obama as those I have just quoted. And yet in the most 

merciless distortion of logic and reason and humanity itself, this 

President refuses to apply these incontrovertible words to helpless 

victims like those of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. 

How I wish somehow that Mr. Obama would open his heart and 

his ears to his own words and ask himself in the core of his soul 

why his words that should apply to all children cannot include the 

most helpless and vulnerable of all children. He is their President, 

and they need him so desperately. 

And my friends on this Committee, those helpless children that 

we speak of today need all of us as well. Indeed, they are why we 

are all here. 

And with that in mind, I would like to end my opening statement 

with two short video clips taken from today’s headlines. The first 

part is of the Live Action organization’s undercover expose of the 

late-term abortion industry. It shows a late-term abortion counselor 

in my own State of Arizona advising a pregnant woman on the 

need to address the unborn child’s pain. 

The second is part of a testimony delivered by the Philadelphia 

district attorney’s office describing the horrors uncovered in Dr. 

Kermit Gosnell’s late-term abortion clinic. 

So please go ahead. 

[Video shown.] 

[The bill, H.R. 1797, follows:] 
4 

1VlTH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R.1797 

To amend title Ib, lTnited States Code, to proteet pain-eapable unborn 

«hildren in the Distriet of Columbia, and for otl1er purpORes. 

IN THE HOl~SE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2013 

Mr. FRA="Im of Arizona (for him;;:elf, Mr. S:}IITH of New .Tersey, Mr. SCALISE, 

Mr. GOSAR, Mr. SCHWEIKDJRT, 1\11'. SALMON, Mr .• TONES, MI'. CONAWAY, 

Mr. CP,-,,-'II'FORD, Mr. NUNNELEE, Mr. CRA..lI1:ER, Mr. I\1="o of Iowa, Mr. 

FLE1VllNG, Mr. GAHK~T;l', Mr. HOl<~ of Tennessee, Mr. CAHI'JM{, Mr. 

NEUGEBAUER, lVIr;;:. ROBY, lVIr. COLE, Mr. HUIZENGA of :JIiehigan, Mr. 

HARPER, Mr. lVL'\.ssm, :J11'. PEARCE, :J11's. BLACKBURN, Mr. BOLSTAi\"Y, 

Mrs. HARTZLER, .\11'. BRIDENSTINE, lVIr. E.INGS'l'ON, Mr. GUTHRIE, IVIr. 

Hm,nT="G, Mr. GRJF'F'TN of Arkansas, Mr. Rl)C+~R.S of Alabama, Mr. 

ADERHOLT, Mr. AlvIASH, Mr. BLCHANA=", Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. Jl..IARINO, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, 1\Ir. 

DUNCAN of Tennessee, lVII'. GO'll'DY, Mr. BACHU"', ~\ir. IJATTA, lVII's. 

RT,ACK, Mrs. NOEm, ]\:fs. R.os-LEH'T'TKEN, Mr. You="G of lndiamt, Mr. 

POMPEO, Mr. STOClGiL,,-,", Mr. Wn,SON of South Carolina, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. SHUSTER, :JIr. STIVERS, Mr. BARR, Mr. 

GOBJliIERT, Mr. FIKCHER, Mr. MUI,LI=", lVir. BROLK of Georgia, Mr. 

TJT?TNSKT, Mr. RENTSHEK, Mr. Em,s, Mr 'i'TBKRJ, 1Tr. \VEST',oroT,.ET,AND, 

Mr. ROTIIFUS, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. LONG, Mr. BON="ER, Mr. PITTS, Mr . 

. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. McKINLEY, lVIr. CALVERT, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. 

'VAT,BER.G, Mr. S'T'EWART, :VIr. YODER, Mr. HrT,TClR.EN, Mr. Tu\NKF'ORD, 

Mr. OLSON, Mr. SJVIITII of Nebraska, Mr. DESANTIS, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. 

ROKITA, Mr. HALL, Mr. :-JUGENT, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. WAGNER, l\1r. BODNEY DAViS of lllinois, Mr. JOHNSON of 

Ohio, Mr. FOR.TE'ITiJ<;KRY, :Vfr. SCHOCK. aml :vrr. POSEY) introduepd the 

follovving; bill; whidl wa;; referred to the Committee on the Judi(jary, and 

in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

cOllsideration of sueh provisiOllS as fall wit.hin t.he jurisdiction of t.he eOnlmittee tOlleerned 
5 

2 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United State8 Code, to protect pall1-

capable unborn children in the Di8trict of Columbia, 

and for other puqJOses. 

1 Be it enacted the Senate and House of RepresentaUn/:tcd States 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "District of Columbia 

5 Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act". 

6 SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds and declares the follnv\~ng: 

8 (1) Pain receptor8 (nociceptor8) are pre8ent 

9 throughout the unhorn child's entire hody and 

10 nerve8 link the8e reeeptor8 to the brain\; thalarmm 

11 and suhcortical plate hy no later than 20 weeks after 

12 fertilization. 

13 (2) By R weeks after fertilization, the unborn 

14 child reacts to touch. After 20 weeks, the unborn 

15 child reacts to stimuli that vvould be recognized as 

16 painful if applied to an adult human, for example, 

17 by recoiling. 

18 (3) In the llnborn child, applieation of sneh 

19 painful stimuli is associated with significant ll1-

20 creases in stress hormones known as the stress re21 8pcnme . 

• HR 1797 IH 
6 

3 

1 (4) Su~jection to such painful stimuli is associ2 ated ,vith long-term harmful neurodevelopmental ef3 feds, such as altered pain sensitivity and, possibly, 

4 emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities later 

5 in life. 

6 (5) For the purposes of surgery on unborn chil7 eh-en, fetal anesthesia is routinely adruinisterec1 and 

8 is associated 'with a decrease in stress hormones 

9 compared to their level when painful stimuli are ap10 plied without sueh anesthesia. 

II (6) The position, asserted by some medical ex12 perts, that the unborn child is incapable of eA'J}eri13 eneing pain nntil a point later in pregnancy than 20 

14 weeks after fertilization predominately rests on the 

15 aStmmption thnt the ability to experience pain de16 pends on the cerebral cortex and requires nerve con17 nertions between the thalamus and the cortex. How18 ever, recent medical research and analysis, especially 

19 since 2007, provides strong evidence for the conclu20 sion that a functioning cortex is not necessary to ex21 perience pain. 

22 (7) Substantial e,ridence indicates that cllildren 

23 born missing the bulk of the cerebral cortex, those 

24 ,'lith hydranencephaly, nevertlleless eXl)erience pain . 

• HR 1797 IH 
7 

4 

1 In adult humatls and in animals, stimula2 tion or ablation of the cerebral cortex does not alter 

3 pain perception, while stimulation or ablation of the 

4 thalamus does. 

5 (9) Substantial evidence indicates that struc6 tures used for pain processing in early development 

7 differ from those of adults, using different neural 

8 elements available at specific times during develop9 ment, such as tlle subnortical plate, to fulfill tlle role 

10 of pain processing. 

il (10) The position, asserted by some commellta12 tors, that the unborn ehild remains in a coma-like 

13 sleep state that precludes the unhorn cbild experi14 eneing pain is ineonsistent ,vith the documented re15 action of unborn children to painful stimuli and ,vith 

16 the experience of fetal surgeons ,vho have found it 

17 necessary to sedate the unborn child with anesthesia 

18 to prevent the unborn child from engaging in ~ng19 orous movement in reaction to invasive surgery. 

20 (11) Consequently, there is substantial medical 

21 evidence that an unborn child is capable of eA'J}eri22 encing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertili~atioll, 

23 if not earlier. 

24 (12) It is the purpose of the Congress to assert 

25 a compelling governmental interest in proteeting the 

.HR 1797 IH 
8 

5 

1 lives of unborn children from the stage at which sub2 stantial medical evidence indicates that they are ca3 pable of feeling pain. 

4 (13) The compelling governmental interest in 

5 protecting the lives of unborn children from the 

6 stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates 

7 that they are capable of feeling pain is intended to 

8 be separate from and independent of the compelling 

9 governmental interest ill protecting the lives of nnW born children from the 8tage of viability, and neither 

11 governmental interest is intended to replace the 

12 other. 

13 (14) The District Council of the District of Co14 lumbia, operating under authority delegated by Con15 gress, rel)ea1cd the entire District law limiting ahor16 tions, effeetive April 29, 2004, so that in the Dis17 trirt of Columhia, ahortion is now legal, for any rea18 son, until the moment of birth. 

19 (15) A.rticle 1, section 8 of the Constitution of 

20 the United States of AInerica provides that the Con21 gress shall "exercise exclusive Legislation in aU 

22 Cases whatsoever" over the District established as 

23 the seat of government of the United States, now 

24 knOV,lll as the District of Columbia. Tlle constitu25 tional responsibility for the protection of pain-capa-

.HR 1797 IH 
9 

6 

1 ble unboru children within the Federal District re2 sides ,vith the Congress. 

3 SEC. 3. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN 

4 

5 

CHILD PROTECTION. 

IN GENERLu .. -Chapter 74 of title 18, United 

6 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 

7 the following: 

8 "§ 1532. District of Columbia pain-capable unborn 

9 child protection 

10 "(a) UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.-Notwithstamling any 

II other prn\~sion of law, including any legislation of the Dis12 triet of Columbia under authority delegated by Congress. 

13 it shall he unlawful for any person to perform an ah0l1ion 

14 within the District of Columbia, or attempt to do so, un15 less in conformity with the requirements set forth in sub16 section (b). 

17 "(h) REQUIREMENTS FOR ABORTIONS.-

18 "(1) The physician performing or attempting 

19 the abortion shall first make a determination of the 

20 probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child or 

21 reasonably rely upon such a determination made by 

22 another pllysician. In making such a determination, 

23 the physician shall make such inquiries of the preg24 nant woman and peTform or cause to be pelformed 

25 such medical examinations and tests as a reasonably 

.HR 1797 IH 
10 

7 

1 prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and 

2 the medical conditions involved, would consider nec3 essary to make an accurate determination of post4 fertilization age. 

5 "(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph 

6 (E), the abortion shall not be performed or at7 tempted, if the probable post-fertilization age, as de8 termined under paragraph (1), of the unborn child 

9 is 20 weeks or greater. 

10 "(B) Subjed to tmbparagraph (C), subparaII gTaph (A) does not apply if, in reasonnble medical 

12 judgment, the abortion is necessary to save the life 

13 of a pregmmt woman whose life is endangered hy a 

14 physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, 

15 inrluding a life-endangering physical condition 

16 caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but 

17 not including psychological or emotional conditionR. 

18 "(C) Notvvithstancling the definitions of 'abor19 tion' and 'attempt an abortion' in this section, a 

20 physician terminating or aUelnpting to terminate a 

21 pregnancy under the exception provided by subpara22 gTaph (B) may do so only in the manner which, ill 

23 reasonable medical judgment, provides the best op24 portunity for the unborn child to sm'Vive, unless, ill 

25 reasonable medical judgment, termination of the 

.HR 1797 IH 
11 

8 

1 pregnancy in that manner would pose a greater risk 

2 of3 "(i) the death of the pregnant 'wuman; or 

4 "(ii) the substantial and irreversible phys5 ical impairment uf a major bodily function, not 

6 including psychological or emotional conditions, 

7 of the pregnant woman; 

8 than would other available methods. 

9 CIWVlINAI, PI~NAl/rY.-\Yhoever ,,~olates sub10 section (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 

II for not more tllan 2 years, or botll. 

12 "(d) BAR TO PROSEGCTION.-A wuman upon whom 

13 an ahortion in violation of tmhsection (a) is performed or 

14 attempted may not he prusecuted under, or for a con15 spiracy to violate, subsection (a), or for an offense under 

16 section 2, 3, or 4 based on such a violation. 

17 "(e) CIVIL REMEDIES.-

18 "(1) CIVllJ ACTION BY WOJl.IAN ON VlII01I THE 

19 ABORTION IS PERFORMED.-A woman upon whom 

20 an abortion has been performed or attempted in vio21 lation of subsection (a), may in a civil action against 

22 any person who engaged in the v~olation obtain ap23 propriate relief. 

24 CIVIL ACTIO,," BY tIl<JI,A'I'IVI'JS.-The father 

25 of an unborn child who is the su~jeet of an abortion 

.HR 1797 IH 
12 

9 

1 performed 01' attempted m violation of subsection 

2 (a), or a maternal grandparent of the unborn child 

3 if the pregnant woman is an unemancipated minor, 

4 may in a civil action against any person who en5 gaged in the violation, obtain appropriate relief, un6 less the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's 

7 criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the 

8 abortion. 

9 "(3) ApI'HOPHIA'I'I~ Hm,llw.-Appropriate relief 

lOin a civil actiun under thiJ,; subsectiun includes11 objectively verifiable money damages 

12 for all injuries, psychological and physical, occa13 sioned hy the violation of this section; 

14 "( B ) statutory damages equal tu three 

15 times the cost of the abortion; and 

16 punitive damages. 

17 "( 4) IX,TUNCTIVE EELIEF.-

18 "(A) IN GENEIL~L.-A qualified plaintiff 

19 may in a civil action obtain injunctive relief to 

20 prevent an abortiun pruvider frum performing 

21 or attempting further abortions in violation of 

22 this section. 

23 "(B) DEFINITIOX.-In this paragraph the 

24 term 'qualified plaintiff' means-

·HR 1797 IH 
13 

10 

1 "(i) a woman upon whom an abortion 

2 IS performed or attempted in violation of 

3 this section; 

4 "(ii) any person who is the spouse, 

5 parent, sibling' or g'uardian of, or a current 

6 or former licensed health care provider of, 

7 that woman; or 

8 "(iii) the United States Attorney for 

9 the District of Columbia. 

10 "(5) ATTORNEYS FEES FOR PLAIXTIFF.-The 

11 court shall award a reasonable attorney's fee as part 

12 of the e08t8 to a prevailing plaintiff in a eivil aetion 

13 under this subsection. 

14 "(6) ATTORNEYS FEES FOR DEFEND.illiT.-If a 

15 defendant in a civil action under this section prevails 

16 and the court finds that the plaintiff's suit was friv17 olous and hrought in bad faith, the court shall also 

18 render judgment for a reasonable attornei s fee in 

19 favor of the defendant against the plaintiff. 

20 "(7) AW~illDS AGAINST WO~IAN.-Except under 

21 paragraph (6), in a civil action under this sub22 section, 110 damages, attorney's fee or otller mOlle23 tary relief may be assessed against the woman upon 

24 whom the abortion was perforrned or attempted . 

• HR 1797 IH 
14 

11 

1 "(f) PROTECTION OF PRIVACY IN COURT PRO2 CEEDINGS.-

3 "(1) Ix GE~"ERAL.-Except to the extent the 

4 Constitution or other similarly compelling reason re5 quires, in every civil or criminal action under this 

6 section, the court shall make such orders as are nec7 essary to protect the anon.Y1nity of any woman upon 

8 whom an abortion has been performed or attempted 

9 if she does not give her vvrittell consent to such dis10 closure. Sueh orders may be made upon motion, but 

II shall be made sua sponte if llot othelVv~se sougllt by 

12 a party. 

13 ORDERS TO EARTIES, WITNESSES, Ac"lD 

14 COUNSEL.-The eourt shall issue appropriate orders 

15 under paragraph (1) to the parties. witnesses, and 

16 counsel and shall direct the sealing of the record and 

17 exclusion of individuals from courtrooms or hearing 

18 rooms to the extent necessary to safeguard her icLen19 tity from public disclosure. Each such order shall be 

20 accompanied by specific ivritten findings e:x-plaining 

21 vyhy the anony-mity of the woman must be preseITed 

22 from public disclosure, Wlly the order is essential to 

23 that end, how the order is narrowly tailored to seITe 

24 tllat illterest, and why no reasollable less restrictive 

25 alternative exists . 

• HR 1797 IH 
15 

12 

1 "(3) PSEUD(J~""llVI HEQUIRED.-In the absence 

2 of written consent of the woman upon ""hom an 

3 abortion has been performed or attempted, any 

4 party, other than a public official, who brings an ac5 tion under paragraphs (1), or (4) of subsection 

6 ( e) shall do so under a pseudon:vm. 

7 "(4) LnuTATION.-This subsection shall not be 

8 construed to conceal the identity of the plaintiff or 

9 of "V~blesses from tlle defendant or from attorneys 

10 for the defendant. 

II "(g) Rl·JPOH.'l'ING.-

12 "(1) DUTY TO HEPOHT.-Any physician who 

13 pcrforms or attcmpts an ahortion within thc District 

14 of Columbia shall report that abortion to the rel15 cvant District of Columbia hcalth agcncy (hcrcin16 after in this section refereed to as the 'health agen17 on a schcdule and in accordancc with forms am1 

18 regulations prescribed by the health agency. 

19 ) CONTENTS OF HEPoHT.-The report shall 

20 include the following: 

21 "(A) POST-FEB.TILIZATION AGE.-For the 

22 determination of probable postfertili7.atirJll age 

23 of the unborn child, whether ultrasound was 

24 employed ill rnaking the determinatiOll, and the 

.HR 1797 IH 
16 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

! I 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

13 

week of probable post-fertilization age that was 

determined. 

"(B) METIIOD OF AnORTION.-v\11ieh of 

the following methods or eombination of methods was employed: 

.HR 1797 IH 

"(i) Dilation, dismemberment. and 

evaeuation of fetal parts also known as 'dilation and evaeuation'. 

"(ii) Intra-amniotic instillation of saline, urea, or other :sub:stance (:specity :substance) to kill the unborn cllild, followed by 

imluction of labor. 

"(iii) Intracanliac or other intra-fctal 

injection of digoxin, pota:s:sium chloride, or 

other suhstance (specify suhstance) intended to kill the unborn ehild, followed 

induction of lahor. 

Partial-birth abortion, as defined 

in section 1531. 

Manual vaeuum aspiration ~without other methods. 

"(v~) Electrieal vaeuum aspiration 

without other methods. 
17 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

"(vii) Abortion induced by use of 

mifepristone In combination with 

misoprostol. 

"(viii) If none of the methods described in the other clauses of this subparagraph was employed, whatever method 

was employed. 

AGE OF WOl\Ltli~.-The age or approximate age of tlle pregnant woman. 

"(D) COMPLLL,CE \\'1TH REQUIREMENTS 

l<'OH I·JXCI~P'l'ION.-The facts relied upon and 

the basis for any determinations required to estahlish compliance 'with the requirements for 

the exception provided by subsection (b) (2). 

"(3) EXCLUSIONS FROM B.EPOB.T8.-

"(A) A repot1 required under this subsection shall not contain the name or the address of the woman whose pregnancy ~was terminated, nor shall the report contain any other 

information identifying the woman. 

"(B) Such report shall contain a unique 

Medical Record Number, to enable matching 

the report to the woman's medical records. 

Such reports shall be maintained m 

strid confidence by the health ag'ency, shall not 

.HR 1797 IH 
18 

15 

1 be available for public itlspection, and shall not 

2 be made available except3 "(i) to the United States Attorney for 

4 the District of Columbia or that Attorney's 

5 delegate for a criminal investigation or a 

6 civil investigation of conduct that may vio7 late this section; or 

8 "(ii) pursuant to court order in an ac9 tion 11llder S11bsectirJll (e). 

10 "( 4) PUBLIC REPOET.-l\ot later than June 30 

II of each year beginning after the date of enactment 

12 of this paragraph, the health agency shall issue a 

13 puhlic report providing statistics for the previous 

14 calendar year compiled from all of the reports made 

15 to the health agency under this suhsection for that 

16 ,Year foro each of the items listed in paragraph (2). 

17 The report shall also provide the statisties for all 

18 previous calendar years during which this section 

19 was in effect, adjusted to reflect any additional in20 formation from late or corrected reports. The health 

21 agency shall take care to ensure that none of the in22 formation illcluded in the public reports cOllld refl23 sonably lead to the identification of any pregnant 

24 woman npon whom all abortion was performed or aJ25 tempted . 

• HR 1797 IH 
19 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

16 

"(5) FAILURE TO SUB::YIIT REPORT.-

"(A) LATE FEE.-Any physician who fails 

to submit a report not later than 30 days after 

the date that report is due shall be subject to 

a late fee of $1,000 for each additional 30-day 

period or portion of a 30-day period the report 

is overdue. 

"(B) COURT ORDER TO COlVIPLY.-A court 

of competent jurisdiction may, ill a civil action 

commell(~ed by the health ag'eney, dirett any 

pllysician whose report under this subsection is 

still not filed as required, or is incomplete, more 

than IRO after the date the repmt. was 

due, to comply ",ith the recluirernents of this 

section under penalty of civil contempt. 

DISCIPLINARY ACTION.-Intentional 

or recldess failure hy any physician to comply 

\vith any requirement of this subsection, other 

than late filing of a report, constitutes sufficient cause for any disciplinary sanction wlllch 

the Health Professional Licensing Administration of the District of Columbia determines is 

appropriate, including suspension or revocation 

of any license gTanted by the Administration . 

• HR 1797 IH 
20 

17 

1 "(6) FORMS A",~D REGrLATIONS.-::-.Jot later 

2 than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 

3 section, the health agency shall prescribe forms and 

4 regulations to assist in compliance vvith this sub5 section. 

6 "(7) EFFECTIVE DATE OF B.EQUIREMEXT.-

7 Paragraph (1) of this subsection takes effect with 

8 respect to all abortions performed on and after the 

9 first day of the first calendar month beginning after 

10 the effective date of such forms and reg·ulations. 

II "(h) DEI<'INI'I'ION8.-In this section the follnvling 

12 definitions apply: 

13 "(1) -<1BOB.TION.-The term 'nhortion: means 

14 the use or prescriptiun of any instrument, medicine, 

15 drug, or any other suhstance or device16 "(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child 

17 of a woman known to he pregnant; or 

18 "(B) to intentionally prematurely terrni19 nate the pregnancy of a woman known to be 

20 pregnant, with an intention other than to in21 crease the probability of a live birth or of pre22 serving the life or health of tlle child after live 

23 birth, or to remove a dead unborn child. 

24 "(2) A'l''I'I~lVll''I' AN AHOK.TION.-The term 'at25 tempt', vvith respect tu an aburtiun, means cunduet 

.HR 1797 IH 
21 

18 

1 that, uuder the circumstances as the actor believes 

2 them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course 

3 of cunduct planned to culminate in performing an 

4 abortion in the District of Columbia. 

5 FERTILIZATION.-The term 'fertilization' 

6 means the fusion of human spermatozoon "with a 

7 human ovum. 

8 HEALTH AGENCY.-The term 'health 

9 agenci means the Departrnent of Health of the Dis10 triet of Culumbia or any successor agency respUll11 sible for the regulation of medical practice. 

12 "(5) PERFORlVI.-The term 'perform', with re13 spect to an abortion, includes induce an abortion 

14 through a medical ur chemical intervention including 

15 vrriting a prescription for a drug or device intended 

16 to result in an abortion. 

17 "(6) PHY8ICIAN.-The term 'physirian' means 

18 a persun licensed to practice medicine and surgery 

19 or osteopathic medicine and surgery, or otherwise li20 ceused to legally perform an abortion. 

21 "(7) POST-FERTILIZATION AGE.-The term 

22 'post-fertili7.atioll age' means the age of the unborn 

23 child as calculated from the fusion of a human 

24 spermato7.oon w-ith a hmnan ovum . 

• HR 1797 IH 
22 

19 

1 PROBABLE POST-FERTILIZATION AGE OF 

2 THE UNBORN CHILD.-The term 'probable post-fer3 tilization age of the unborn child: means what, in 

4 reasonable medical judgment, \vill with reasonable 

5 probability be the postfertilization age of the unborn 

6 child at the time the abortion is planned to be per7 formed or induced. 

8 "(9) REASONABLE MEDICAL JUDGl\IENT.-The 

9 term 'reasonable medical judgment' means a medical 

10 judgment that would be made by a reasonably Pnl11 dent physician, knowledgeable about tlle case and 

12 the treatment possibilities \vith respect to the med13 ienl conditions involvcrl. 

14 "(10) U~"BORN CHILD.-The term 'unborn 

15 child' means an individual organism of the species 

16 homo sapiens, beginning at fertilization, until the 

17 point of heing horn alive as defined in section ~(h) 

18 of title 1. 

19 "(11) UNEMANCIPATED MINOR.-The term 

20 'unemancipated minor' means a minor who is sub21 ject to the control, authority, and supervision of a 

22 parent or guardian, as determined under the law of 

23 the State in which the minor resides . 

• HR 1797 IH 
23 

20 

1 "(12) VVOlVB1'J.-The term 'woman' means a fe2 male human being whether or not she has reached 

3 the age of majority.". 

4 (b) CLERICAL Al\IENDMEXT.-The table of sections 

5 at the beginning of chapter 74 of title 18, United States 

6 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

7 item: 

"15:32. Di~triet of Columbia pain-capable unborn child protection.". 

8 (c) CHAPTER HEADING AlVIENDlVIENTS.-

9 (1) CILli'TER IIEADING IX CILli'TER.-The 

10 chapter heading for chapter 74 of title 18, United 

II States Code, is amended by striking "PARTIAL· 

12 BIRTH ABORTIONS" and inserting "ABOR13 TIONS". 

14 (2) TABLE OF CFL~TER8 FOR PART I.-The 

15 item relating to chapter 74 in tlle table of chapters 

16 at the beginning of part 1 of title 18, United States 

17 Code, is amended by striking "Partial-Birth Abor18 tiOIlS" and inserting "Abortiolls" . 

• HR 1797 IH 
24 

Mr. FRANKS. I would now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Nadler from New York, for his opening statement. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are back once again considering legislation that would curtail 

women’s reproductive rights. I understand how personally important this is to some of my colleagues, and they are certainly entitled to their beliefs. But the many Americans who see the world 

very differently, including millions of women who value their personal autonomy, can be forgiven if this looks like just another battle in the Republican war on women. 

I accept that on this one we are going to have to agree to disagree. In this case, my colleagues appear, through the operation of 

the criminal code, to be trying to settle a scientific question on 

which there is no consensus within the field. That is an exercise 

of raw political power, not of dispassionate fact-finding. 

Some of the views we are going to hear today are, in fact, viewed 

by many scientists in the field as outliers, not as mainstream scientific thought. The fact that the majority has allowed two individuals to purport to present—to purport to present as clearly established science views that are clearly marginal in their fields will 

create a false and misleading record. 

The fact that the minority has been limited to only one witness 

demonstrates just what a farce these hearings are. Yes, I know we 

could have invited our own medical expert, but at the expense of 

hearing from an actual woman who can provide a real-world look 

at the impact this legislation will have on real families. We could 

not do both. 

The bill, as introduced, would prohibit nearly all abortions beginning at 20 weeks. That, as every first-year law student knows, is 

facially unconstitutional. 

Just this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

struck down a similar Arizona statute, saying, ‘‘Since Roe v. Wade, 

the Supreme Court case law concerning the constitutional protection accorded women with the respect to the decision whether to 

undergo an abortion has been unalterably clear regarding one basic 

point. A woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate 

her pregnancy before the fetus is viable. A prohibition on the exercise of that right is, per se, unconstitutional.’’ 

That, of course, is what this bill would do, and voting for it would 

violate our oaths to uphold the Constitution. Nonetheless, despite 

that, this bill would prohibit nearly all abortions, including those 

involving threats to a woman’s health and in cases of rape or incest 

and where the woman may have become suicidal. 

Exceptions to protect the woman where her life and health are 

at risk, as is not included in this bill, are required throughout pregnancy, even post viability, if the bill is to be constitutional. But 

such exceptions are not in this bill. 

I hope that in addition to the many statements of concern we will 

hear today for fetuses, we can also hear a few words of concern for 

women and their families. The bill, as introduced, would, as in the 

case in the last Congress, apply only to the residents of the District 

of Columbia. I understand from the Chairman’s public statements 

that he intends to expand the bill, to amend it to apply to the entire country. 
25 

While I had previously objected to the singling out of the people 

of the District of Columbia, who are, after all, taxpaying Americans 

who serve in our military, respond when one of us has an emergency requiring police, fire, or EMT services, and serve as congressional staff, I must now extend my objections on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of the women in the entire country. 

This legislation represents an extreme view of the abortion question and is at odds with the science. That is why people in many 

States have firmly rejected it, including the people I represent. 

Just as it is an outrage for Congress to impose its will on the people of the District of Columbia, in this case, so, too, I will fight any 

such usurpation of the rights of my constituents. 

I am not going to sit here and debate the question of fetal pain, 

except to note that even Dr. Anand, who was cited in the majority’s 

witness testimony and hearing memo and who was called by the 

majority to testify before this Subcommittee in 2005, told us, ‘‘I 

think the evidence for and against fetal pain is very uncertain at 

the present time. There is consensus in the medical and scientific 

research community that there is no possibility of pain perception 

in the first trimester. There is uncertainty in the second trimester.’’ 

The Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that, 

‘‘Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.’’ 

The Royal Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded, ‘‘It can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain 

in any sense prior to 24 weeks gestation.’’ 

Are we really going to take sides in this scientific debate by 

jailing and bankrupting people who don’t agree because we, as an 

all-knowing Committee of Congress, are going to decide what the 

science is? That is what this bill would do. 

Similarly, the claim that an abortion is never necessary to protect a woman’s health is simply not one that is widely held in the 

medical profession, and the idea that we should be enshrining this 

marginal view into the criminal code defies reason. I hope that our 

medical witnesses will at least agree that a woman can become 

pregnant as a result of rape, something that some Members of this 

body seem to question. 

I find it deeply disturbing that when it comes to issues like this, 

some people think there is nothing wrong with making families in 

crisis have the courage of legislators’ convictions. That is also 

wrong. 

I know that we will hear a lot about the Gosnell case today, and 

I would like to address it at the outset. Dr. Gosnell has been proven a criminal. He is going to jail, and deservedly so. 

Colleagues who were here at the time may recall that I actively 

supported passage of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act—I 

think this was about 12 years ago—which made it a crime to kill 

an infant once it is born alive. As I said at the time, that was already illegal everywhere, and even if it was duplicated, we should 

support it now. I am confident that it was the right thing to do. 

What Dr. Gosnell did had nothing to do with abortion. It was 

murder and infanticide, pure and simple. That Born-Alive Infants 

Protection Act was not about abortion because it involved live 
26 

births and affirmatively killing a newborn. It was about classic 

murder. 

Similarly, Dr. Gosnell’s practice of snipping a newborn’s spine 

following a live birth is indefensible, clearly murder, and obviously 

illegal. That is why he was convicted. 

What the Gosnell case does not illustrate, no matter how many 

times activists insist it should, is anything regarding the practice 

of abortion generally. The fact is that 40 years after Roe, it is hard 

to find another practitioner like Gosnell really—the fact that 40 

years after Roe it is hard to find another practitioner like Gosnell 

really speaks to the actual state of that practice. 

I am sorry that some on the other side of this debate seem so 

gleeful that this has happened. It is a tragedy for these women, 

and it is a disgrace that any medical practitioner should have acted 

in such a manner. 

I would urge my colleagues to think about the extent to which 

he, Dr. Gosnell, represented the poor quality of healthcare services 

available in poorer communities. We should be working to make 

sure that high-quality healthcare is provided to the uninsured, to 

make sure that the full range of healthcare services, including family planning services, that are available to people with money are 

available to the poor and uninsured as well. 

If that means funding a Planned Parenthood clinic in every 

neighborhood to put guys like Gosnell out of business, so be it. If 

it means closer regulation of the medical profession, so be it. If it 

means an end to the constant efforts by my Republican colleagues 

to limit the rights of injured patients to sue, so be it. 

But let us not pretend that this is about the practice of abortion 

in America today. If it were, our prisons would be filled with 

Gosnells. I don’t think the Chairman has stopped going to the dentist because one dentist in Oklahoma was found to have infected 

thousands of patients, and I don’t think we should outlaw abortions 

because a bad actor committed crimes against his patients. 

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

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman and would just suggest to 

him that there is no one on either side of this aisle that is gleeful 

about the actions of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. 

And I would yield now to the distinguished Chairman of the full 

Committee, Mr. Goodlatte from Virginia. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate your holding this hearing and for your leadership on this 

issue. 

Since the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Roe v. Wade 

in 1973, medical knowledge regarding the development of unborn 

babies and their capacities at various stages of growth has advanced dramatically. Even the New York Times has reported on 

the latest research on unborn pain, focusing in particular on the research of Dr. Sunny Anand, an Oxford-trained neonatal pediatrician who has held appointments at Harvard Medical School and 

other distinguished institutions. 

According to the New York Times, 25 years ago, doctors were 

convinced that newborns’ nervous systems were too immature to 

sense pain. Anand resolved to find out if this was true. 
27 

In a series of clinical trials, he demonstrated that operations performed under minimal or no anesthesia produced a massive stress 

response in newborn babies, releasing a flood of fight or flight hormones like adrenaline and cortisol. Potent anesthesia, he found, 

could significantly reduce this reaction. But Anand was not 

through with making observations. He noticed that even the most 

premature babies grimaced when pricked by a needle. 

New evidence, however, has persuaded him that fetuses can feel 

pain by 20 weeks gestation and possibly earlier. As Dr. Anand 

would later testify, ‘‘If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, 

I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus, and I 

believe it will be severe and excruciating pain.’’ 

Congress has the power to acknowledge these developments by 

enacting H.R. 1797 and prohibiting abortions after the point at 

which scientific evidence shows the unborn can feel pain with limited exceptions. The terrifying facts uncovered during the course of 

the trial of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell and successive reports of similar atrocities committed across the country remind us 

how an atmosphere of insensitivity can lead to horrific brutality. 

The grand jury report in the Gosnell case itself contains references to a neonatal expert who reported that the cutting of the 

spinal cords of babies intended to be late-term aborted would cause 

them, and I quote, ‘‘a tremendous amount of pain.’’ These facts justify expanding the application of this bill Nationwide, and I fully 

support Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Franks’ intention to 

do so. 

Indeed, the Polling Company recently found that 64 percent of 

Americans would support a law such as the Pain-Capable Unborn 

Child Protection Act. Only 30 percent would oppose it. And supporters include 47 percent of those who identify themselves as pro 

choice in the poll. 

In the 2007 case of Gonzalez v. Carhart, the Supreme Court 

made clear that, and I quote, ‘‘The Government may use its voice 

and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the 

life within the woman and that Congress may show such respect 

for the unborn through ’specific regulation’ because it implicates 

additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition.’’ 

Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in the Carhart 

case, also wrote that the Government has ‘‘an interest in forbidding 

medical procedures, which, in the Government’s reasonable determination, might cause the medical profession or society as a whole 

to become insensitive, even disdainful to life, including life in the 

human fetus, even life which cannot survive without the assistance 

of others.’’ 

As the New York Times story concluded, throughout history, a 

presumed insensitivity to pain has been used to exclude some of 

humanity’s privileges and protections. Over time, the charmed circle of those considered alive to pain and, therefore, fully human 

has widened to include members of other religions and races, the 

poor, the criminal, the mentally ill, and thanks to the work of 

Sunny Anand and others, the very young. 

The Gosnell trial reminds us that when newborn babies are cut 

with scissors, they whimper and cry and flinch from pain. But it 
28 

takes only a moment’s thought to realize that wherever babies are 

cut, they whimper and cry and flinch from pain. Delivered or not, 

babies are babies, and they can feel pain at 20 weeks. 

It is time to welcome young children who can feel pain into the 

human family, and this bill at least will do just that. I congratulate 

Chairman Franks and yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. 

And I will now yield to the Ranking Member of the Committee, 

Mr. Conyers from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. 

Ladies and gentlemen, it has been said by one of our esteemed 

Members of this Judiciary Committee that when Members of Congress attempt to play doctor, it is bad medicine for women, and 

that is what brings us here today. 

Could I just ask the ladies from Planned Parenthood that are in 

the audience, and we welcome everyone that is in this room, but 

could those women just stand up for a moment? 

Thank you. Thank you very much for coming. 

What I see us doing here this morning is undermining the basic 

reproductive rights of women by prohibiting any abortion after 20 

weeks, with only limited exception and imposing criminal penalties, among other sanctions. This subject is an extremely difficult 

one because every pregnancy is unique and different. 

Some women, unfortunately, must face the emotionally devastating decisions in the course of their pregnancies that require 

them to consider abortion as a health option. But if this bill became 

law, Congress would be able to impose its will with respect to one 

of the greatest tragedies that these women and their families may 

ever endure by using the threat of prison and lawsuits to coerce 

them into making decisions that may be bad for their health, their 

families, and deny them essential medical care. 

Now the problem, of course, is this. Is that any attempt, as in 

1793, to ban pre-viability abortions is patently unconstitutional 

under Roe v. Wade. It has been the law for more than 40 years, 

and even after viability, the court has required any abortion prohibition to include an exception to protect the woman’s life and 

health, which this bill fails to do. 

It has already been mentioned that the Court of Appeals has 

struck down a similar attempt that is embodied in H.R. 1793 by 

saying since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case law concerning 

the constitutional protection accorded women with respect to the 

decision whether to undergo an abortion has been unalterably clear 

regarding one basic point. A woman has a constitutional right to 

choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable. A prohibition on the exercise of that right is, per se, unconstitutional. 

That very clearly identify the problem with this attempt in 1793 

before us today. And then, to add insult to injury, 1793 explicitly 

states that a risk of suicide is insufficient cause to allow a woman 

to end a pregnancy. 

So, ladies and gentlemen, this is a sad day, and I know that 

there are other views. But when we have a measure this draconian 

that fails to include any exceptions for cases involving rape and incest, this, of course, would force a person to bear her abuser’s child. 

So keep in mind that 25,000 women in the United States become 
29 

pregnant as a result of rape, and 30 percent of these rapes tragically involve women under the age of 18. 

And so, I thank the Chairman for allowing me to express my 

opinion on this measure. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman, and I would just suggest for the record that, indeed, there is an exception to save the 

life of the mother in this. And any issues regarding rape or incest 

are usually dealt with before the beginning of the sixth month of 

pregnancy. 

And I would now—— 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, maybe I could speak out of order for 

a moment for 30 seconds? 

Mr. FRANKS. Sure. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to clarify that in my opening remarks, I had no intention of suggesting that the Chairman or any Member of this 

panel was gleeful about the Gosnell case in any way. 

Mr. FRANKS. I sincerely appreciate that, Mr. Nadler. 

And I would now introduce our witnesses, would now welcome 

you here. I know that there is never anything easy about what you 

are doing today, but I am grateful to all of you here, and we are 

grateful to every last person in the audience as well for being here. 

And I will now introduce our witnesses. Now I will suggest to 

you that the Speaker failed to check with us when he scheduled 

votes. And so, I will introduce—I will be giving the introduction 

here, and then we will have to adjourn for a few moments, and we 

will go vote. And we will come back, and then we will hear your 

testimony. 

But thank you for your patience. 

Dr. Anthony Levatino is a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist. Over the course of his career, Dr. Levatino has practiced 

obstetrics and gynecology in both private and university settings, 

including as an associate professor of OB/GYN at the Albany Medical College. And I thank you for being here, sir. 

Dr. Maureen Condic is an associate professor of neurobiology and 

an adjunct professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah School 

of Medicine. Dr. Condic is the director of human embryology for 

that medical school, and I thank you for being here. 

Ms. Christy Zink is a resident of Washington, D.C., and I thank 

you, Ms. Zink, for being here as well. 

Our final witness is Jill Stanek, a nurse turned speaker, columnist, and blogger, and a National figure in the effort to protect 

both preborn and post born innocent human life. And Ms. Stanek, 

I thank you for being here as well. 

And with that, we will recess and we will return, hopefully, in 

25 to 30 minutes. And again, I apologize for the interruption. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. FRANKS. The Constitution Committee will come to order. 

I start out by telling you that it seems that we are going to have 

another vote in approximately an hour. So we are going to go 

ahead and get started as soon as possible, and I want to thank everyone again for their attendance. 

And I especially want to thank the witnesses for their presence 

here. I know each of you took great pains to be here. 
30 

So each of your statements will be entered into the record in its 

entirety, and I will 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 witnesses, it is the tradition of the 

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

be sworn. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. FRANKS. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

I now recognize our first witness, and please turn on your microphone, Dr. Levatino, and please proceed, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY LEVATINO, OBSTETRICS AND 

GYNECOLOGY, LAS CRUCES, NM 

Dr. LEVATINO. Good morning. Chairman Franks and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me. 

My name is Anthony Levatino. I’m a board-certified obstetrician/ 

gynecologist. I have served in both academic and clinical settings. 

Currently, I practice in Las Cruces, New Mexico. 

I’ve been a board—I’ve been an obstetrician/gynecologist for 33 

years, and the early part of my career, I performed over 1,200 abortions. Over 100 of them in the second trimester, up to 24 weeks of 

gestation. 

Imagine, if you can, that you’re an obstetrician/gynecologist and 

a pro-choice obstetrician/gynecologist like I was, and your patient 

today is 17 years old. She’s 24 weeks pregnant from last period. 

Her uterus is two finger breadths above her umbilicus. She has 

been feeling her baby kick for over a month. She is asleep on an 

operating room table, and you are there to help her with her problem. 

The first thing you do is withdraw the laminaria that was placed 

in the cervix. The dilation of the cervix that’s required for a D&E 

abortion at that level takes at least 36 hours. Later abortions can— 

dilation of the cervix can necessitate almost 3 days of preparation 

prior to performance of the procedure. 

The first thing you are going to reach is for a suction catheter. 

This is a 14-French suction catheter. It’s about 9, 10 inches long. 

It’s about 3⁄4-inch in diameter. And picture yourself, if you can, 

placing this through the cervix and instructing your circulating 

nurse to turn on the suction machine. 

What you’ll see is pale yellow fluid running through this into the 

suction bottles of the machine. That was the amniotic fluid that 

was there to protect the baby. 

If this was a first trimester abortion, when her child would be 

that size or smaller, you could essentially do the entire abortion 

with this one instrument. A 24-week baby that we’re describing 

here from last period is the length of your hand and a half again 

from head to rump, not counting the legs. Babies that size don’t fit 

through catheters this size. 
31 

When you’re done, reach for a Sopher clamp. This is one that I 

brought along so you could see what we’re talking about. It’s about 

13 inches long. It’s stainless steel. 

The business end on this clamp is about 1⁄2-inch wide and about 

21⁄2 inches long. And there are rows of sharp teeth on this instrument. It’s a grasping instrument. When it gets a hold of something, 

it does not let go. 

A second trimester abortion at that stage is a blind procedure. 

You can’t really see anything. Everything has to be done by feel. 

Picture yourself, if you can, reaching in with this instrument and 

grasping blindly anything you can and pull hard. And when it finally pops free, out comes a leg that big, which you put down on 

the table next to you. 

Reach in with this again and grasp and pull hard. Out comes an 

arm about the same length, which you put down on the table next 

to you. And reach in with this instrument again and again and tear 

out the spine, the intestines, heart, and lungs. 

Head of a baby about that age is maybe the size of a large plum. 

Again, the procedure is blind. You reach in, being careful not to 

perforate the uterus, and you have a pretty good idea you have it, 

if you have your clamp around something and your fingers are 

spread about as far as they will go. 

You know you did it right if you crush down on the clamp, and 

white material runs out of the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. 

Then you can pull out skull pieces. If you had a day like I had a 

lot of days, sometimes a face comes back and stares back at you. 

Congratulations, you just successfully performed a second trimester D&E abortion. You just affirmed her right to choose. 

These procedures are brutal by their nature. In later abortions, 

when you are preparing that cervix for even more extended periods 

of time, you can have situations where you will get into preterm 

labor or even precipitous deliveries of these children. The Gosnell 

situation is a situation that has, I think, brought to the public’s attention what we’re talking about when we’re talking about this 

level of abortion. 

It was mentioned earlier that the idea that abortion is not—is 

needed to save women’s lives is one that must be under consideration. As a faculty member at the Albany Medical College, I have 

treated hundreds of women with severe problems with their pregnancies. Pregnancies that were life-threatening to them. Cardiac 

disease, diabetes, cancers, toxemia, elevated blood pressure in pregnancy. 

I’ll illustrate with one case that I dealt with personally. A patient 

came in at 27 weeks of gestation, blood pressure 220 over 140. You 

know a normal blood pressure is 120 over 80. This woman is moments or hours away from a stroke. 

We stabilized her, delivered her. She had a healthy baby in the 

end, and she did well as well. But I was able to stabilize and deliver her within an hour because that was required when you have 

an emergency of that magnitude. 

Abortion would be worthless in that situation. As I told you, at 

27 weeks of gestation, it would have taken at least 3 days to even 

prepare her to be able to go through the procedure, and this is an 
32 

important point when we talk about abortion in terms of saving 

women’s lives. 

I appreciate your attention. I guess I’ll just end, Chairman 

Franks quoted President Obama earlier. I’m going to quote him one 

more time. 

He said recently, ‘‘If there is just one thing, one thing that we 

could do that would save just one child, don’t we have an obligation 

to try?’’ 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Levatino follows:] 
33 

Testimony of Anthony Levatino, MD before the Snbcommittee on the Constitution 

and Civil Justice 

U.S. House of Representatives 

May 23, 2013 

Chairman Franks and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Anthony 

Levatino. I am a board-certified obstetrician gynecologist. I received my medical degree from 

Albany Medical College in Albany, NY in 1976 and completed my OB-GYN residency training 

at Albany Medical Center in 1980. In my 33-year career, 1 have been privileged to practice 

obstetrics and gynecology in both private and university settings. From June 1993 until 

September 2000, I was associate professor of OB-GYN at the Albany Medical College serving at 

different times as both medical student director and residency program director. 1 have also 

dedicated many years to private practice and currently operate a solo gynecology practice in Las 

Cruces, NM. 1 appreciate your kind invitation to address issues related to the District of 

Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (HR. 1797). 

During my residency training and during my tirst five years of private practice, I 

performed both first and second trimester abortions. During my residency in the late 1970s, 

second trimester abortions were typically performed using saline infusion or, occasionally, 

prostaglandin instillation techniques. These procedures were difficult, expensive and necessitated 

that patients go through labor to abort their pre-born children. By 1980, at the time 1 entered 

private practice first in Florida and then in upstate New York, those of us in the abortion industry 

were looking for a more efficient method of second trimester abortion. The Suction D&E 

procedure offered clear advantages over older installation methods. The procedure was much 

quicker and never ran the risk of a live birth. Understand that my partner and I were not running 

an abortion clinic. We practiced general obstetrics and gynecology but abortion was defmitely 

part of that practice. Relatively few gynecologists in upstate NY would perform such a procedure 

and we saw an opportunity to expand our abortion practice. I perfonned tirst trimester suction 

D&C abortions in my office up to 10 weeks from last menstrual period and later procedures in an 

outpatient hospital setting. From 1981 through February 1985, T perfonned approximately 1200 

abortions. Over 100 of them were second trimester Suction D&E procedures up to 24 weeks 

gestation 

Imagine if you can that you are a pro-choice obstetrician/b'Ynecologist like 1 once was. 

Your patient today is 24 weeks pregnant. At twenty-four weeks from last menstrual period, her 

uterus is two finger-breadths above the umbilicus. If you could see her baby, which is quite easy 

on an ultrasound, she would be as long as your hand plus a half from the top of her head to the 

bottom of her rump not counting the legs. Your patient has been feeling her baby kick for the last 
34 

month or more but now she is asleep on an operating room table and you are there to help her 

with her problem pregnancy 

The first task is remove the laminaria that had earlier been placed in the cervix to dilate it 

sufficiently to allow the procedure you are about to perform With that accomplished, direct your 

attention to the surgical instruments arranged on a small table to your right. The first instrument 

you reach for is a l4-French suction catheter. It is clear plastic and about nine inches long. It has 

a bore through the center approximately % of an inch in diameter. Picture yourself introducing 

this catheter through the cervix and instructing the circulating nurse to turn on the suction 

machine which is connected through clear plastic tubing to the catheter. What you will see is a 

pale yellow fluid that looks a lot like urine coming through the catheter into a glass bottle on the 

suction machine. This is the amniotic tluid that surrounded the baby to protect her. 

With suction complete, look for your Sopher clamp. This instrument is about thirteen 

inches long and made of stainless steel. At the business end are located jaws about 2 Yz inches 

long and about J/4 of an inch wide with rows of sharp ridges or teeth. This instrument is for 

grasping and crushing tissue. When it gets hold of something, it does not let go. A second 

trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure. The baby can be in any orientation or position 

inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp and grasping anything you 

can. At twenty-four weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or 

puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the 

jaws and pull hard - really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 

six inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once 

again and out pops an arm about the same length Reach in again and again with that clamp and 

tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs. 

The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby's head. The head of a baby 

that age is about the size of a large plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You 

can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers 

will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see white 

gelatinous material coming through the cervix. That was the baby's brains. You can then extract 

the skull pieces. Many times a little face will come out and stare back at you. Congratulations I 

You have just successfully performed a second trimester Suction D&E abortion. You just 

affirmed her right to choose. If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts severe pain on 

that unborn child, please think again. 

Before I close, I want to make a comment on the necessity and usefulness of utilizing 

second and third trimester abortion to save women's lives. I often hear the argument that we 

must keep abortion legal in order to save women's lives in cases of life threatening conditions 

that can and do arise in pregnancy. Albany Medical Center where I worked for over seven years 

is a tertiary referral center that accepts patients with life threatening conditions related to or 

caused by pregnancy. I personally treated hundreds of women with such conditions in my tenure 

there. There are several conditions that can arise or worsen typically during the late second or 

third trimester of pregnancy that require immediate care. In many of those cases, ending or 

"terminating" the pregnancy, if you prefer, can be life saving But is abortion a viable treatment 

option in this setting? I maintain that it usually, if not always, is not. 
35 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Dr. Levatino. 

And Dr. Condic, I will now recognize you for 5 minutes. 

We have some audio/visual? Yes, ma’am. And would you turn 

your mike on and pull that close to you, please? 

Before a Suction D&E procedure can be perfonned, the cervix must first be sufficiently 

dilated. In my practice, this was accomplished with serial placement of laminaria. Laminaria is a 

type of sterilized seaweed that absorbs water over several hours and swells to several times its 

original diameter. Multiple placements of severallaminaria at a time are absolutely required 

prior to attempting a suction D&E. In the mid second trimester, this requires approximately 36 

hours to accomplish. When utilizing the D&X abortion procedure, popularly known as PartialBirth Abortion, this process requires three days as explained by Dr. Martin Haskell in his 1992 

paper that first described this type of abortion. 

In cases where a mother's life is seriously threatened by her pregnancy, a doctor more 

often than not doesn't have 36 hours, much less 72 hours, to resolve the problem. Let me 

illustrate with a real-life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient 

arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood 

pressure on admission was 220/160. As you are probably aware, a normal blood pressure is 

approximately 120180. This patient's pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn 

child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke. This case was 

managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient's blood pressure and "terminating" her 

pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well. This is a typical case in the world of 

high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion "to save the mother's 

life" would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care. 

During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by "tenninating" 

pregnancies to save mother's lives. In all those hundreds of cases, the number of unborn children 

that I had to deliberatel y kill was zero 
36 

TESTIMONY OF MAUREEN L. CONDIC, Ph.D., DEPARTMENT OF 

NEUROBIOLOGY AND ANATOMY, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 

SCHOOL OF MEDICINE 

Ms. CONDIC. Yes. Okay, can you hear me? 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. CONDIC. Great. Chairman Franks, Congressman Nadler, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I’m Dr. Maureen Condic, 

associate professor of neurobiology and adjunct professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

[Slides.] 

Ms. CONDIC. So the experience of pain is obviously very complex. 

Here I have summarized the important events of brain development relevant to pain perception. The three points I’d like to emphasize are these. 

First, brain development begins very early, by 4 weeks post fertilization. Second, the neural circuitry underlying the most basic 

response to pain is in place by 8 weeks. This is the earliest point 

at which a fetus can feel pain at any—in any capacity. And finally, 

the circuitry in the thalamus that’s primarily responsible for both 

fetal and adult pain perception develops between 12 and 18 weeks 

post fertilization. 

At this stage, a fetus is very well developed. All of the organs 

and structures are fully formed. She has a face, fingerprints, and 

based on my own experience with three pregnancies, a definite personality. 

The debate over fetal pain is not whether pain is detected by a 

fetus at 20 weeks. There is essentially universal agreement on this 

point in the scientific community. Rather, the debate concerns how 

pain is experienced, whether a fetus has the same pain experience 

as a newborn or an adult. 

Recently, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or ACOG, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and a review in the Journal of the American Medical Association have all addressed this point. Yet these reports have received serious scientific criticism. 

And surprisingly, they all assumed without evidence that for a 

fetus to have a conscious experience of pain, certain late-developing 

cortical structures must exist. Yet many conclusive modern lines of 

evidence contradict this view, and I’m going to present just two of 

them. 

First, it’s clear that children born without cortical brain structures are capable of consciousness, including smiling when pleased, 

having preferences for particular kinds of music, and having adverse reactions to pain. Here is a picture of such a patient recognizing her physician. 

This little girl was described in this case report as being a very 

happy child who particularly liked dancing to rock music. Yet, well 

over 80 percent of her brain is missing, and therefore, she does not 

possess the structures that ACOG and others erroneously insist are 

required for conscious recognition of her physician, for example. 

This is a scan of the little girl’s brain. The red star here indicates 

the limited area of the cortex that she possesses, and the yellow 

stars indicate empty space in the regions that ACOG and others 
37 

claim the parts of the brain that are required for conscious pain 

perception should exist. 

The blue star indicates the position of the thalamus, which is the 

region of the brain that is, in fact, responsible for pain perception 

in this patient and in all human beings at all stages of life. And 

as I’ve noted, the pain perception circuitry in this region of the 

brain is in place by 18 weeks. 

So a second line of evidence against the conclusions of ACOG and 

others is the large body of direct experimental data from adult humans that demonstrates that neither removing nor stimulating the 

cortex changes our experience of pain, whereas stimulating or removing lower brain structures, such as the thalamus, does. 

So, for example, a recent study analyzed on videotape the behavioral responses of adult alert patients to 4,160 cortical stimulations, 

and the authors note that pain responses were very scarce, representing less than 1.5 percent of all the responses they observed. 

These authors then conclude that even for adult humans, in contrast to the JAMA report, the ACOG report, and the Royal Society 

reports that have been cited, the cortex is largely not involved in 

the conscious perception of pain. Pain perception is localized to the 

thalamus, and this circuitry is in place by 18 weeks post fertilization. 

In addition to the neurobiological information I have just presented, what we directly observe about a fetus’s response to pain 

is also very clear. Fetuses delivered prematurely exhibit pain-related behaviors, such as those shown here. Pain response observations are very precise, and they’re based on objective criteria. 

Strikingly, the earlier fetuses are delivered, the stronger their response to pain. And this is due to the absence of later-arising brain 

circuitry that actually inhibits a pain response in older infants and 

in adults. 

Similarly, fetuses at 20 weeks post fertilization have an increase 

in stress hormones in response to painful stimuli that can be eliminated by appropriate anesthesia, just as for an adult. These and 

many other direct observations of fetal behavior and physiology 

have resulted in a clear consensus among professional anesthesiologists that the use of anesthesia is warranted in cases of fetal surgery, not based on pragmatic considerations like the suppression of 

fetal movement but, rather, based primarily on the fetus’s experience of pain. 

Finally, I’d like to conclude by saying we really must consider 

our own experience and ask what kind of a society we want to be. 

You know, we’re all horrified by the pictures of the infants that 

were brutally killed by convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell, and yet 

we tolerate this same brutality and even worse for humans at 20 

weeks of development. 

Imposing pain on any pain-capable living creature is cruelty, and 

ignoring the pain experienced by another human for any reason is 

barbaric. We don’t need to know if a fetus experiences pain precisely in the same way we do. We simply have to decide whether 

we’re going to choose to ignore the pain of the fetus or not. 

It is entirely uncontested in the scientific and medical literature 

that a fetus experiences pain in some capacity from as early as 8 

weeks, and most modern neuroscientists conclude that the thalamic 
38 

circuitry that’s in place by 18 weeks post fertilization is primarily 

responsible for human experience of pain at all stages of life. 

Given that fetuses are members of the human species, human 

beings like us, they deserve the benefit of the doubt regarding their 

experience of pain and protection from cruelty under the law. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Condic follows:] 
39 

Testimony of 

Maureen L. Condie, Ph.D. 

University of Utah, School of Medicine, Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy 

Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, 

Committee on U1e Judiciary, 

U.S. House of Representatives 

May 23, 2013 

Chairman Franks, Congressman Nadler, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I 

am Dr. Maureen Condie, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of 

Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. I am Director of Human 

Emblyology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the 

Dental School at my institution. Thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding 

celtain aspects of the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act 

(H.R. 1797). 

What is Pain? 

The experience of pain is complex, with physical, psychological and mental elements. In 

the simplest sense, pain is an aversive response to a noxious (physically harmful or 

destructive) stimulus. The medical dictionary administered by the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH)] supports this view, defining pain as, "a basic bodily sensation that is 

induced by a noxious stimulus, is received by naked nerve endings, is characterized by 

physical diseomfOit (as pricking, throbbing, or aching), and typically leads to evasive 

action." As humans, we share this basic experience of pain with many other animals, 

from very simple creatures like reptiles and birds, up to mammals and primates. 

Yet pain has more complex dimensions. The NIH dictionary also offers the following, 

more nuanced definition of pain: "a state of physical, emotional, or mental lack of wellbeing or physical, emotional, or mental uneasiness U1at ranges fwmmild discomfort or 

dull distress to acute often unbearable agony, may be generalized or localized, and is the 

consequence of being injured or hurl." This definition also defines pain as a response to a 

noxious stimulus or injury, but acknowledges that the response can have emotional or 

mental dimensions as well. And, like alimental experiences, it is difficult for anyone of 

us to fully appreciate another person's psychological experience of pain. Every 

individual's reaction to pain is unique. E:-..periences one person might find e:-..tremely 

painful may seem insignificant to someone else. Moreoyer, even for a single individual, 

the perception of what is and what is not painful can change over time. Expelienees a 

young woman might find painful (e.g. being snubbed at a social event) may seem trivial 

to a more experienced woman in middle age. And expelienees a middle-aged woman 

might find painfully dilTicull (e.g. death of a colleague) may be far less painful to a young 

woman who has a less acute sense of her own mmtality. 

] See definition "b" at: http://www.merriam-webster.eom/medlineplus/pain. 

Condie Testimony, H R, 1797, 23 May 2013 
40 

How do we know if others are experiencing pain? 

While the psychological and menial aspects or pain are important to us, they are also 

fundamentally personal, and therefore not something that can be fully understood by 

anyone else. We can listen to someone's explanation of their painful experience. We can 

empathize. We can measure certain physical, neurological and endocrine responses to 

painful stimuli. But we cannot directly share another individual's expelienee of pain. 

Importantly, our inability to fully understand someone else's experience of pain docs not 

prevent us from making rational and pm dent judgments about painful situations and how 

they obligate us to behave. We do not justify inflicting pain on another person by saying, 

"I can't possibly know how anyone else experiences me punching them in the face, 

therefore I am not obligated to restrain from this behavior." When considering the painexperience of other humans, we are guided by three simple principles: what we know 

about pain, what we observe about another individual's reaction to a painful stimulus and 

what we can reasonably conclude from our own experience of pain. 

What we know. When scientific data provides evidence that an experience causes harm 

or imposes significant risk of harm to another individual (i.e. it involves a "noxious" 

stimulus), this experience is reasonably viewed as "painful." Even if the individual's 

perception of this harmful stimulus is compromised in some manner (perhaps by a 

genetic condition that limits their ability to receive painful neural information or by drugs 

that have temporarily limited this ability), we are nonetheless obligated to avoid causing 

pain to another human individual, both out of compassion and out of justice. 

What we observe. When observation, either casual or scientific, provides reasonable 

evidence that an individual perceives an experience as "painful," (the individual 

withdraws, clies out, grimaces, or shows elevated respiration, heart rate or stress 

hormones), we are obligated to avoid causing pain to that individual. 

What we experience ourselves. When our own reaction to the experience another 

individual is having would be one of pain, we can reasonably conclude it is painful to 

them as well. Perhaps not in precisely the same manner or lo the same degree, bUl things 

that hUit us tend to be hunful to others as well. 

Scientific data regarding fetal brain development and pain perception 

The ability to perceive noxious stimuli and react to them develops over a very long 

peliod of time in humans, continuing well after bilth and (as noted above) changing 

significantly across any individual's lifespan. 

The earliest "rudiment" of the human nervous system fonns by 28 days (four weeks) after 

sperm-egg fusion. At this stage, the primitive brain is already "pattellled"; i.c. cells in 

different regions are specified to produce stmetures appropriate to their location in the 

Condie Testimony, H R.179J, 23 May 2013 2 
41 

neIVllUs system as a whole. 2 Over the next several weeks, the brain will grow enormously 

and gcncratc many complcx conncctions, but thc ovcrall organization of thc ncrvous 

system is established by four weeks. This is significant because it shows that even at this 

early stage, the brain is not anything like a mere collection of cells or a "blank slate" to 

be written upon by later developmental processes. Like all embryonic organs, the 

stmcture of the early brain "anticipates" the function of the mature system. 

In the region of the brain responsible for thinking, memory and other "higher" functions 

(thc ncocmtcx), thc carlicst ncurons arc gcncratcd during thc fourth wcck aftcr SpCllll-Cgg 

fusion. 3 This tells us that at this early date, the brain is organizing the structures that will 

bc rcquircd for distinctively human cxpclicnccs, although thcsc structurcs will not bc 

fully mature for at least two decades." 

There is strong scientific evidence that communication between neurons of the brain is 

established in the seventh week. Synapses, which are the molecular structures required 

for brain cells to communicate with each other, are detected in the corte;'>. at this time.' In 

animals, synapses are functional immediately and this is likely also tme of humans. Thus, 

the earliest function of the neocortex as a network appears to commence in the seventh 

week. 

The neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, 

is in place by 8 weeks of development. This is the earliest point at which the fetus 

experiences pain in any capacity.6 And a fetus responds just as humans at later stages of 

2 Langman's Medical Embryology, 11th Edition T.W. Sadler. (2009). Lippincoll 

Williams and Wilkins. (ISBN-IO: 0781790697) Chaptcrs 5 and 6. 

3 Tangential networks of precocious neurons and early axonal outgrowth in the 

cmbryonic human forcbrain. Bystron I, Molnar Z, Otellin V, Blakcmorc C. J Ncurosci. 

2005;25:2781-92.; ApoER2 and VLDLR in the developing human telencephalon. Cheng 

L, Tian Z, Sun R, Wang Z, Shen J, Shan Z, Jin L, Lei L. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 

2011;15:361-7.; The first neurons of the human cerebral cortex. Bystron I, Rakic P, 

Molnar Z, Blakemore C. Nat Neurosci. 2006;9:880-6. Epub 2006 Jun 18.; Dcvelopment 

of the human cerebrdl cortex: Boulder Commillee revisited. Bystron I, Blakemore C, 

Rakic P. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9: 110-22. 

4 Gogtay N et al (2004) Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during 

childhood through early adulthood. Proc Nat! Acad Sci USA 101:8174; Sowell ER et al 

(2003) Mapping cortical changc across thc human lifc span. Nat Ncurosci 6:309 

, Synaptogenesis in layer I of the human cerebral cortex in the first half of gestation. 

Zcccvic N. Ccrcb Cortcx. 1998;8:245-52. 

6 Synaptogenesis in the cervical cord of the human embryo: sequence of synapse 

formation in a spinal rcflcx pathway. Okado N, Kakimi S, Kojima T. J Comp Ncurol. 

1979;184:491-518.; Onset of synapse formation in the human spinal cord. Okado N. J 

Comp Ncurol. 1981 ;201 :211-9.; Thc finc structurc of thc spinal cord in human cmbryos 

and early fetuses. Wozniak W, O'Rahilly R, Olszewska B. J Himforsch. 1980;21: 101-24.; 

Early synaptogenesis in the spinal cord of human embryos. Milokhin AA. Acta Bioi 

Condie Testimony, H R.179J, 23 May 2013 3 
42 

developmenl respond; by wilh wilhdrawing from the painful slimulus. This simple 

response is tremendously important for humans at all ages because it rapidly protects the 

body from hannful evenls (heal, cold, chemical injury, crushing, culling, elc.) wilhoul 

requiring the time it takes to reflect on the experience. 

The earliest connections between neurons in the subeonieo-fronk,1 pathways (regions of 

the brain involved in motor control and a wide range of psychological phenomena, 

ineluding pain perception) are detected by 37 days post spenn-egg fusion and are well 

established by 8-10 weeks. 7 This indicates that the brain is "wiling" itself in the first 

trimester, well before reaching the fetal stage of life. Early establishment of connections 

between neurons fUlther indicates that brain formation is an active process of 

progressively building the structures and relationships required for mature brain function. 

Connections between the spinal cord and the thalamus, the region of the brain that is 

largely responsible for pain perception in both the fetus and the adult, begin to form 

around 12 weeks and are compleled by 18 weeks. 8 

The long-range conneclions wilhin the corlex lhal some believe lo be required for 

consciousness do not arise until much later, around 22-24 weeks. 9 And these connections 

continue lo develop for an exceplionally long lime. Indeed, recenl sludies il1llicale lhal 

the anatomy of the human brain, and therefore the pattern of brain activity underlying all 

higher funclions (reason, memory, emolion, language, elc.) is nol fully malure unlil 

approximately 25 years after birth.lO 

What brain structures are necessary for a fetus to feel pain? 

To eAperience pain, a noxious slimulus musl be delecled. The neurdl slruclures necessary 

to detect noxious stimuli arc in place by 8-10 weeks of human development." 

Hung. 1983 ;34:231-45.; Developmenl of pain mechanisms. Filzgerald M. Br Med Bull. 

1991;47:667-75. 

7 Developmenl of aAona! palhways in the human fetal fronlo-limbic brain: hislochemical 

charaeteri7.ation and diffusion tensor imaging. Vasung L, Huang H, lovanov-Milosevic 

N, Plelikos M, Mori S, Koslovic I. J Anal. 2010;217:400-17.; Insighls from in vilro felal 

magnetic resonance imaging of cerebral development. Kostovic I, Va sung L. Semin 

Perinalol. 2009;33:220-33. 

8 Kostovic I, Goldman-Rakic PS: Transient cholinesterase staining in the mediodorsal 

nucleus of the thalamus and its connections in the developing human and monkey brain. J 

Comp NeuroI219:431-447, 1983. 

9 Functional maturation of neocortex: a base of viability. Gatti MG, Becueci E, Fargnoli 

F, Fagioli M, Aden U, Buonocore G. 1 Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25 Suppl 1: 101-

3; 3D global and regional patterns of human fetal subplate growth determined in utero. 

Corbett-Detig l, Habas PA, Scott lA, Kim K, Rajagopalan V, McQuillen PS, Barkovich 

Al, Glenn OA, Studholme C. Brain Stmet Funct. 2011 ;215:255-63. 

10 Ibid at 4. 

11 Ibid at 6. 

Condie Testimony, H R.179J, 23 May 2013 4 
43 

There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. The 

debate concerns how pain is experienced; i.e., whether a fetus has the same pain 

experience a newborn or an adult would have. While every individual's experience of 

pain is personal, a number of scientific observations address what brain structures are 

necessary for a mental or psychological experience of pain. 

First, it is clear that children born without higher brain structures (,decorticate' patients) 

arc capable of expelieneing pain and also other conscious behaviors, including smiling, 

recognizing and distinguishing between familiar/unfamiliar people and situations, having 

preferences for particular kinds of music and having averse reactions to pain. 12 This 

indicates that the long-range connections that deyelop in the cortex only after 22 weeks 

(and arc absent in these patients) arc not obligatory for a psychological perception of 

pain. Similarly, experimental animals that have had the cortex removed also show a 

vigorous response to painful stimuli,13 again indicating that late-dey eloping cortical 

pathways are not reljuired for pain perception and response. 

The observations of human decorticate patients and experimenlally decorticated animals 

noted above are consistent with what is known about the representation of consciousness 

and emotion in the brain. A recent review from the prestigious "Nature" series slates, 

"Feelings constitute a crucial component of the mechanisms of life regulation, from 

simple to complex. Their neuml substrates can be found at all levels of the nervous 

system,from individual neurons to subcortical nuclei and cortical regions." (emphasis 

added).'· Importantly, development of brainstem and thalamic nuclei (among the 

"subcortical nuclei" mentioned above) occurs quite early in humans, with the earliest 

spino-thalamic connections forming by 12-18 weeks post sperm-egg fusion.!S Similarly, 

a second recent review concludes that consciousness persists in the absence of "vast 

12 The presence of consciousness in the absence of the cerebral cortex. Beshkar M. 

Synapse. 2008;62:553-6.; Consciousness in congenitally decorticate children: 

deyelopmental vegetative state as self-fulfilling prophecy. Shewmon DA, Holmes GL, 

Byrne PA. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1999;41:364-74.; The role of primordial emotions in 

the evolutionary origin of consciousness. Denton DA, McKinley MJ, FalTell M, Egan 

GF. Conscious Cogn. 2009;18:500-14.; Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: a 

challenge for neuroscience and medicine. Merker B. Behav Brain Sci. 2007;30(1):63-8l. 

13 Effects of partial deemtieation on opioid analgesia in the fmlllalin test. Matthies BK, 

Franklin KB. Behav Brain Res. 1995;67:59-66.; Fonnalin pain is expressed in 

decerebrate rats but not attenuated by morphine. Matthies BK, Franklin KB. Pain. 1992; 

51: 199-206. 

'"'The nature of feelings: evolutionary and neurobiological origins. Damasio A, Carvalho 

GB. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14: 143-52. 

15 Kostovie I, Goldman-Rakie PS: Transient cholinesterase staining in the mediodorsal 

nucleus of the thalamus and its connections in the developing human and monkey brain. J 

Comp NeuroI219:431-447, 1983. 

Condie Testimony, H R.179J, 23 May 2013 5 
44 

regions of the cortex.,,!6 

Finally, (.\irect experimental evidence from adult humans contradicts the assertion of 

ACOG,17 JAMA 18 and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 19 that mature 

pain perception requires cortical circuitry. Ablation20 or stimulation21 of the cortex in 

humans does not affect pain perception, whereas ablation of lower centers, including the 

thalamus, docsI2 Thcse neurological findings indicate that "mature" pain perception is 

largely localized to the thalamus. The spino-thalamic circuits required for pain 

perception arc established between 12-1 ~ weeks post sperm-egg fusion. 

What we observe about fetal pain 

The preceding sections of this statement have dealt with only the first plineiple outlined 

above for how we can determine whether another individual experiences pain; i.e., what 

we know about the neuroanatomical stlUctures underlying pain perception. In addition, 

what we directly observe about fetal pain is very clear and unambiguous. Fetuses at 20 

weeks post sperm-egg fusion have an increase in stress hormones in response to painful 

16 Minimal neuroanatomy for a conscious brain: homing in on the networks constituting 

consciousness. Morsella E, Krieger SC, Bargh JA. Neural Netw. 2010;23: 14-5. 

17 Amicus Curiae Brief. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists And 

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Paul A. Isaacson et aI., v. Tom 

Horne No. 12-16670. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

18 Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, 

Drey EA, Partridge JC, Rosen MA. JAMA. 2005;294:947-54. 

!9 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Fetal Awareness: Review of 

Research and Recommendations for Practice (Mar. 2010) 

20 Ibid at 12 and 13. 

21 Motor emte1( stimulation in patients with post-stroke pain: conscious somatosensory 

response and pain control. Fukaya C, Katayama Y, Yamamoto T, Kobayashi K, Kasai M, 

Oshima H. Neurol Res. 2003;25: 153-6.; Stimulation of the human cortex and the 

experience of pain: Wilder Penfield's observations revisited. MaLZola L, Isnard .T, Peyron 

R, Mauguicrc F. Brain. 2012; 135:631-40. 

22 Brooks JC, Zambreanu L, Godine)'. A, et al: Somatotopic organisation of the human 

insula to painful heat studied with high resolution functional imaging. Neuroimage 

27:201-209,2005; Nandi 0, Aziz T, Carter H, et al: Thalamic field potentials in chronic 

central pain treated by peri ventricular gray stimulation: a series of eight cases. Pain 

101 :97-107,2003; Nandi 0, Liu X, Joint C, et al: Thalamic field potentials during deep 

brain stimulation of periventricular gray in chronic pain. Pain 97:47- 51, 2002.; Longterm outcomes of deep brain stimulation for neuropathic pain. Boeeard SG, Pereira EA, 

Moir L, Aziz TZ, Green AL. Neurosurgery. 2013;72:221-30.; Regional cerebral 

pelfusion differences between peliventricular grey, thalamic and dual target deep brain 

stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain. Pereira EA, Green AL, Bradley KM, Soper N, 

Moil' L, Stein JF, Aziz TZ. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2007;~5: 175-83.; Penfield W, 

Jasper HH. Epilepsy and the Functional Anatomy of the Human Brain. Boston: Little, 

Brown & Co; 1954. 

Condie Testimony, H R.179J, 23 May 2013 6 
45 

experiences that can be eliminated by appropriate anesthesia.23 Multiple studies clearly 

indicate "the human fetus from 18-20 weeks elaborates pituitaTy-adrenal, sympathoadrenal, and circulatory stress responses to physical insults.,,24 All oC these responses 

reflect a mature, body-wide response to pain. 

Fetuses delivered prematurely, as early as 23 weeks, show clear pain-related behaviors2s 

We know less about infants delivered prior to 23 weeks only because so few arc available 

for study. Strikingly, the earlier infants are delivered, the stronger their response to 

pain. 2(, These and many other direct observations of fetal behavior and physiology have 

resulted in a clear consensus among professional anesthesiologists (highly specialized 

physicians who arc expelts in pain management) that the usc of medications to relieve 

pain is warranted in cases of fetal surgery.2? Many of the advocates of fetal anesthesia 

make no e1aims regarding the qualitative nature of fetal pain, but based on both the 

scientific literature and on their own observations, they clearly conclude that pain exists 

for these fetuses and that as physicians they are obligated to address fetal pain medically, 

despite the many serious challenges and medical risks this procedure entails?8 

Our own experience; Why fetal pain matters 

As individuals and as a society we must choose the altitude we will embrace regarding 

fetal pain. Those who insist, "It is impossible to know what a fetus experiences," are 

denying the obvious fact that it is equally impossible to know what any other human 

individual experiences at any stage of life. This is not a legitimate argument for ignoring 

23 ECCect oC direct Cetal opioid analgesia on Cetal hormonal and hemodynamic stress 

response to intrauterine needling. Fisk NM, Gitau R, Teixeira .TM, Giannakoulopoulos X, 

Cameron AD, Glover VA. Anesthesiology. 2001 ;95:828-35. 

24 Ibid at 22. See also; Human fetal and maternal noradrenaline responses to invasive 

procedures. Giannakoulopoulos X, Teixeira J, Fisk N, Glover Y. Pediatr Res. 

1999;45:494-9.; Fetal plasma cortisol and beta-endorphin response to intrauterine 

needling. Giannakoulopoulos X, Sepulveda W, KOllltis P, Glover V, Fisk NM. Lancet. 

1994;344:77-81.; Acute cerebrdl redistribution in response to invasi ve procedures in the 

human fetus. Teixeira 1M, Glover V, Fisk NM. Am 1 Obstet Gyneeol. 1999;181: 1018-25. 

25 Pain behaviours in Extremely Low Gestational Age inCants. Gibbins S, Stevens B, 

Beyene J, Chan PC, Bagg M, Asztalos E. Early Hum Dev. 2008;84:451-8. 

26 Detenninants of premature infant pain responses to heel sticks. Badr LK, Abdallah B, 

Hawari M, Sidani S, Kassar M, Nakad P, Breidi 1. Pediatr Nurs. 2010;36: 129-36. 

27 Usc of fetal analgesia dllling prenatal surgely. Bellieni CY, Tei M, Sta77.oni G, 

Bertrando S, Cornacchione S, Buonocore GJ Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;26:90-5.; 

Towards state-of-the-art anesthesia for fetal surgelY: obstacles and oppmtunities. 

Kuczkowski KM. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2013 Jan;60(1):3-6.; Fetal and maternal 

analgesia/anesthesia for fetal procedures. Van de Velde M, Dc Buck F. Fetal Diagn Ther. 

2012;31:201-9. 

2S Anesthesia for fetal surgery. Lin EE, Tran KM. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2013;22:50-5.; 

Anesthesia for in utero repair of myelomeningocele. Ferschl M, Ball R, Lee H, Rollins 

MD. Anesthesiology. 2013;118: 1211-23. 

Condie Testimony, H R.179J, 23 May 2013 7 
46 

whal we know from science and from our own observalions. Similarly, lhose who insisl, 

"Ncuroscicntists agrcc thc cortcx is rcquircd for pain pcrccption," arc dcnying thc amplc 

modem scienlific evidence from credible, professionalneuroscienlisls lhal conlradicls 

this conclusion. The absence of a universal consensus regarding what anatomical 

slruclures are required for the complex (and personal) psychological experience of 

"conscious" pain perception does not excuse us from making a decision based on the best 

cvidcncc ,wail able. 

In thc cnd, whcn considcling pain in any othcr human individual wc must choosc, bascd 

on what we know and what we observe, whether we will give that individual the benefit 

of thc doubt, out of compassion, cmpathy andjusticc, or whcthcr wc will ignorc thc pain 

they experience simply because the precise psychological quality of their pain cannot be 

known with ccrtainty. And this choicc is as much about thc kind of socicty wc want to bc 

as it is about the experience of the fetus. 

Imposing pain on any pain-capable living crealure is cruelty. And ignoring Lhe pain 

experienced by another human individual for any reason is barbaric. We don't need to 

know if a human felus is self-rel1ecli ve or even self-aware lo alTord il the same 

consideration we currently afford other pain-capable species. We simply have to decide 

whelher we will choose lo ignore the pain of the felus or nol. 

From the perspeclive of neuroscience, il is unclear precisely whal "psychological" aspecls 

of a mature pain experience are in place at precisely what point in either human prenatal 

or postnatal dcvelopmcnt. It is impossible for mc to know with cCltainty whcthcr anothcr 

adult, a teenager or a fetus experiences pain in precisely the same manner I do. Yet it is 

entirely uncontested that a fetus experiences pain in some capacity, from as early as 8 

weeks of developmenl. Moreover, mosl modem neuroscienlisls have concluded lhallhe 

thalamic circuitJy dcvclopcd by 18 wccks post spclm-cgg fusion is plimarily rcsponsiblc 

for human experience of pain at all stages of life. 

Given lhal feluses are members of the human species-human beinr;s like uS-lhey 

deserve the benefit of the doubt regarding their experience of pain and protection from 

cruelly under the law. 

In light of thc scicntific facts, thc obscrvations of mcdical profcssionals, our own 

experience of pain, and our indirect experience of others' pain, we must conclude that 

lhere is indeed a "compelling govemmenlal inleresl in prolecling the lives of unborn 

children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are 

capable of fccling pain." And this unambiguously rcquircs a 20 wcck fctus to bc 

protected from pain, as propopsed under H.R. 1797. 

Condie Testimony, H R.179J, 23 May 2013 8 
47 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Dr. Condic. 

And Ms. Zink, we will now recognize you for 5 minutes. Thank 

you for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTY ZINK, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. ZINK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Representative Nadler, 

and other Members of the Committee. 

My name is Christy Zink. Late afternoons in May, my family is 

on the lookout for monarch butterflies. It’s spring migration time, 

and the butterflies have winged their way from Mexico through 

Texas, moving now up through the country. 

My daughter learns, as we all do, by sharing the stories of what 

she knows. Monarchs identify food with their feet, she tells me. 

They sip nectar through a proboscis, a word we work together to 

spell out on paper. 

In our yard, as we spy out for the monarchs, her brother keeps 

his own watch. A toddler, he names what he sees in quick bursts. 

Grass. Truck. Tree. 

For me, it’s as if I’m learning along with him, trying out those 

words anew. My family teaches me every day, and I hold dear the 

privilege it is to raise my children and to be student to their wonder. 

All families know this delight in their own way. There are families like mine who understand that joy in more complicated ways, 

earned through hard lessons and harder decisions. I’m here today 

to share my story with you so that you can understand why this 

bill that purports to prevent pain is instead harmful to families 

and to women in situations like the one I faced, and why all women 

in this country need access to safe, quality medical care. 

In addition to the pregnancies with my two children, I was also 

pregnant in 2009. I wondered who my child might grow up to be. 

Would she inherit her father’s love of the pitchers’ duel in baseball? 

Would he make a habit of skipping to the last page of a book, peeking at the end as I do? 

I looked forward to the ultrasound when we would get a chance 

to have a look at the baby in utero to learn a little bit more. I certainly hadn’t imagined that we’d learn terrible news and that after 

the doctor’s visit, my husband and I would have to make the most 

difficult decision of our lives. 

I took extra special care of myself during that pregnancy. I received excellent prenatal attention from an award-winning obstetrician. Previous testing had shown a baby growing on target with the 

limbs and organs all in working order. 

However, when I was 21 weeks pregnant, an MRI revealed that 

our baby was missing the central connecting structure of the two 

parts of his brain. A specialist diagnosed the baby with agenesis of 

the corpus callosum. What allows the brain to function as a whole 

was simply absent. 

But that wasn’t all. Part of the baby’s brain had failed to develop. Where the typical human brain presents a lovely rounded 

symmetry, our baby had small globular splotches. In effect, our 

baby was also missing one side of his brain. 

Living in a major city with one of the best children’s hospitals 

in the country, my husband and I had access to some of the best 
48 

radiologists, neurologists, and geneticists not just in this city or in 

the country, but in the world. We asked every question we could. 

The answers were far from easy to hear, but they were clear. 

There would be no miracle cure. His body had no capacity to repair this anomaly, and medical science could not solve this tragic 

situation. This condition could not have been detected earlier in my 

pregnancy. Only the brain scan could have found it. 

The prognosis was unbearable. No one could look at those MRI 

images and not know instantly that something was terribly wrong. 

If the baby survived the pregnancy, which was not certain, his condition would require surgeries to remove more of what little brain 

matter he had, to diminish what would otherwise be a state of near 

constant seizures. 

I am here today to speak out against the so-called Pain-Capable 

Unborn Child Protection Act. Its very premise that it prevents pain 

is a lie. 

If this bill had been passed before my pregnancy, I would have 

had to carry to term and give birth to a baby whom the doctors 

concurred had no chance of a life and who would have experienced 

near constant pain. If he had survived the pregnancy, which was 

not certain, he might never have left the hospital. My daughter’s 

life, too, would have been irrevocably hurt by an almost always absent parent. 

The decision I made to have an abortion at almost 22 weeks was 

made out of love and to spare my son’s pain and suffering. I’m horrified to think that the doctors who compassionately, but objectively explained to us the prognosis and our options for medical 

treatment and the doctor who helped us terminate the pregnancy 

would be prosecuted as criminals under this law for providing 

basic, safe medical care and expertise. 

This bill does not represent the best interests of anyone, especially families like mine. What happened to me during pregnancy 

can happen to any woman regardless of her health, race, ethnicity, 

economic status, or where she lives. The proposed law is downright 

cruel, as it would inflict pain on the families, the women, and the 

babies it purports to protect. 

It’s in honor of my son that I’m here today speaking on his behalf. I’m also fighting for women like me to have the right to access 

safe, legal, high-quality abortion care when we need to beyond 20 

weeks, especially for those women who could never imagine they’d 

have to make this choice. 

Women across this country need to be able to make this very private decision with their partners, their doctors, and trusted counselors. I urge you not to pass this harmful legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Zink follows:] 
49 

Testimony of Christy Zink before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the 

Constitution and Civil Justice 

May 23,2013 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Representative Nadler, and other members of the committee. My 

name is Christy Zink. 

Late afternoons in May, my family is on the lookout for Monarch butterflies. It's spring 

migration time, and the butterflies have winged their way from Mexico, through Texas, moving, 

now, up through the country. My daughter learns as we all do, by sharing the stories of what 

she knows. Monarchs identify food with their feet, she tells me; they sip nectar through 

proboscis, a word we work together to spell out on paper. In our yard, as we spy out for the 

Monarchs, her brother keeps his own watch. A toddler, he names what he sees in quick bursts: 

"Grass." "Truck." "Tree." For me, it's as if I'm learning along with him, trying out those words 

anew. My family teaches me every day, and I hold dear the privilege it is to raise my children 

and be student to their wonder. 

All families know this delight in their own way. There are families, like mine, who 

understand that joy in more complicated ways, earned through hard lessons and harder 

decisions. I'm here today to share my story with you so that you can understand why this 

bill that purports to prevent pain is, instead, harmful to families and to women in situations 

like the one I faced, and why all women in this country need access to safe, quality medical 

care. 

In addition to the pregnancies with my two children, I was also pregnant in 2009. I wondered 

who my child might grow up to be. Would she inherit her father's love of the pitcher's duel in 

baseball? Would he make a habit of skipping to the last page of a book, peeking at the end, as I 

do? I looked forward to the ultrasound when we would get a chance to have a look at the baby 

in utero, to learn a little bit more. I certainly hadn't imagined that we'd learn terrible news, and 

that, after that doctors' visit, my husband and I would have to make the most difficult decision 

of our lives. 

I took extra special care of myself during that pregnancy. I received excellent prenatal 

attention from an award-winning obstetrician. Previous testing had shown a baby growing on 

target, with the limbs and organs all in working order. However, when I was 21 weeks 

pregnant, an MRI revealed that our baby was missing the central connecting structure of the 

two parts of his brain. A specialist diagnosed the baby with agenesis of the corpus callosum. 

What allows the brain to function as a whole was simply absent. But that wasn't all. Part of the 

baby's brain had failed to develop. Where the typical human brain presents a lovely, rounded 

symmetry, our baby had small, globular splotches. In effect, our baby was also missing one side 

of his brain. 

Living in a major city with one of the best children's hospitals in the country, my husband and I 

had access to some of the best radiologists, neurologists, and geneticists not just in this city or 

in the country, but in the world. We asked every question we could. The answers were far from 

1 
50 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Zink. 

And I would now recognize Ms. Stanek, and Ms. Stanek, thank 

you for being here. Ms. Stanek? 

TESTIMONY OF JILL L. STANEK, RN, MOKENA, IL 

Ms. STANEK. Thank you. Thank you for having me. 

When I testified before this Committee in 2000 and 2001, it was 

to tell of my experience as a registered nurse in the labor and deeasy to hear, but they were clear. There would be no miracle cure. His body had no capacity to 

repair this anomaly, and medical science could not solve this tragic situation. 

This condition could not have been detected earlier in my pregnancy. Only the brain scan could 

have found it. The prognosis was unbearable. No one could look at those MRI images and not 

know, instantly, that something was terribly wrong. If the baby survived the pregnancy, which 

was not certain, his condition would require surgeries to remove more of what little brain 

matter he had, to diminish what would otherwise be a state of near-constant seizures. 

1 am here today to speak out against the so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. 

Its very premise-that it prevents pain-is a lie. If this bill had been passed before my 

pregnancy, 1 would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby whom the doctors 

concurred had no chance of a life and would have experienced near-constant pain. If he had 

survived the pregnancy-which was not certain-he might never have left the hospital. My 

daughter's life, too, would have been irrevocably hurt by an almost always-absent parent. 

The decision I made to have an abortion at almost 22 weeks was made out of love and to spare 

my son's pain and suffering. 

1 am horrified to think that the doctors who compassionately but objectively explained to us 

the prognosis and our options for medical treatment, and the doctor who helped us terminate 

the pregnancy, would be prosecuted as criminals under this law for providing basic, safe 

medical care and expertise. This bill does not represent the best interests of anyone, especially 

families like mine. What happened to me during pregnancy can happen to any woman, 

regardless of her health, race, ethnicity, economic status, or where she lives. This proposed law 

is downright cruel, as it would inflict pain on the families, the women, and the babies it 

purports to protect. 

It's in honor of my son that I'm here today, speaking on his behalf. I am also fighting for women 

like me, to have the right to access safe, legal, high-quality abortion care when we need to 

beyond 20 weeks-especially for those women who could never imagine they'd have to make 

this choice. Women across this country need to be able to make this very private decision with 

their partners, their doctors, and trusted counselors. I urge you not to pass this harmful 

legislation. 

2 
51 

livery department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, where 

I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in 

the hospital’s soiled utility room. 

Among other familiar faces that I see here today is Congressman 

Nadler, who was a Member of the Committee at that time, as he 

indicated earlier, and he said that he was appalled by the incidents 

I described and found them heart wrenching. Indeed, I was traumatized and changed forever by my experience of holding a little 

abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he died, a 21- to 22-weekold baby who had been aborted because he had Down syndrome. 

Since then, other appalling stories of abortion survivors either 

being abandoned or outright killed have been trickling out. The 

Kermit Gosnell case provides further evidence that the lines between illegal infanticide and legal feticide, both via abortion, have 

become blurred. 

This abortionist was convicted only last week of three counts of 

first-degree murder in the deaths of three born babies whose spinal 

cords we all know were snipped, as he called them. Also last week 

came the revelation and photos from three former employees who 

allege that Houston abortionist Douglas Karpen routinely kills babies after they are born by puncturing the soft spot on their head 

or impaling the stomach with a sharp instrument, twisting the 

head off or puncturing the throat with his finger. 

It is easy to be horrified by heart-wrenching stories such as this 

and to imagine the torture that abortion survivors endure as they 

are being killed. But it is somehow not so easy to envision preborn 

babies the same age being tortured as they are killed by similar 

methods. 

Today, premature babies are routinely given pain relief, who are 

born at the same age as babies who are torn limb from limb or injected in the heart during abortions. The World Health Organization goes so far as to recommend pain relief for preemies getting 

a simple heel stick to draw a couple of drops of blood. 

Likewise, prenatal surgery is becoming commonplace, and along 

with it, anesthesia for babies being operated on, even in ‘‘the middle of pregnancy’’ as the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital says. Meanwhile, babies of an identical age are torn apart during abortions 

with no pain relief. 

It must be that some people inexplicably think that the abortion 

provides a firewall against fetal pain or that babies marked for 

abortion are somehow numb while their wanted counterparts 

aren’t. This thinking is better suited for the Middle Ages than for 

modern medicine. 

Yet while NARAL Pro-Choice America eventually expressed neutrality on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which provides 

legal protection for born babies no matter what gestational age and 

no matter if wanted or not, NARAL opposes legislation protecting 

babies of the same age from barbaric abortions after the point they 

are known to feel pain. 

Abortion proponents attempt to say that abortionists who commit 

abortions past 20 weeks are rare. This is a myth. The National 

Right to Life Committee, perusing a report from Guttmacher Institute, which is a research arm of the abortion industry, in 2008 

found that at least 300 abortion providers across the U.S. perform 
52 

abortions after 18 weeks post fertilization, and then at least 140 

abortionists commit abortions on pain-capable children at 20 weeks 

post fertilization. 

As for the number of late-term abortions committed in this country, nobody knows. There are no standardized mandatory Nationwide abortion reporting requirements, and some of the most liberal 

jurisdictions, such as California, Maryland, and D.C., don’t report 

at all. And it is questionable that abortionists even comply with 

regulations and, as we know by Gosnell, that enforcement agencies 

enforce these reporting. 

For instance, when the Elkton, Maryland, office of abortionist 

Steven Brigham was raided in 2010, investigators found 35 fetuses 

in his freezer. But there were no medical records documenting 33 

of those abortions, much less reporting. 

The Gosnell grand jury report said that between 2000 and 2010, 

Gosnell reported only 1 second trimester abortion when we know 

that he probably committed thousands of late-term abortions during that decade. No one knows how many abortions are committed 

after 20 weeks. So it is false for anyone to claim that they are rare. 

It is also a myth that late abortions are mostly committed on babies with handicaps, although being handicapped is certainly no excuse for torture. Dr. Leroy Carhart, who commits abortions in Germantown, Maryland, just 30 miles from here, was caught on tape 

by Live Action stating he routinely commits elective abortions at 26 

weeks. 

‘‘Saw four this week,’’ Carhart quipped to the Live Action pregnant investigator, also joking that he uses a pickaxe and a drill bit 

to kill older babies. 

Only two blocks from the White House, late-term abortionist 

Cesare Santangelo told a pregnant Live Action investigator he 

would kill her healthy 24-week-old preborn baby by snipping the 

umbilical cord, which is the equivalent of cutting the hose off of a 

scuba diver, causing death by slow asphyxiation. His Web site 

states that he will commit dilatation and evacuation abortions up 

to 26 weeks. 

Having actually held a little abortion survivor, I cannot imagine 

standing there in the soiled utility room and tearing him apart to 

hurry up his killing. I expect that that thought horrifies everybody 

here. But this is what is done to others just like him on a daily 

basis, their excruciating fate determined simply by geography. 

Our Nation makes progress when we put an end to senseless disparate treatment of anyone, and certainly the most vulnerable in 

our midst. It is time we apply this standard to preborn babies, such 

as what I have described. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stanek follows:] 
53 

Testimony ofJill L. Stanek, RN 

HR 1797, Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act 

U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice 

May 23,2013 

When I testified before this committee in 2000 and 2001, it was to tell of my 

experience as a registered nurse in the Labor and Delivery Department at Christ 

Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, where I discovered babies were being aborted alive 

and shelved to die in the department's soiled utility closet. 

Among other familiar faces I see today is Congressman Nadler, who was a member 

of the committee then. He said he was "appalled" by the incidents I described and 

found them "heart-wrenching." 

Indeed, I was traumatized and changed forever by my experience of holding a little 

abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he died, a 21/22-week-old baby who had 

been aborted because he had Down syndrome. 

Since then, other appalling stories of abortion survivors being either abandoned or 

killed have trickled out. 

In 2005, a mother delivered her 23-week-old baby in the toilet at EPOC Clinic in 

Orlando, Florida, and was shocked to see him move1. Abortion staff not only refused 

to help but turned away paramedics, who her friend had notified by calling 9112. 

Angele could do no more than helplessly sit on the floor rocking and singing to her 

baby for 11 minutes until he died. 

In 2006, Sycloria Williams delivered her 23-week-old baby boy on a recliner at A 

Gyn Diagnostic Center in Hialeah, Florida. When he began breathing and moving, 

abortion clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez cut the umbilical cord and zipped him into a 

biohazard bag, still alive 3. 

The Kermit Gosnell case provides further evidence that the lines between illegal 

infanticide and legal feticide, both via abortion, have become blurred. This 

I "Rowan's story," World Magazine, May 7, 2005 

(http://www.worldmag.com/200 5 /0 5 / rowan_s_story) 

2 "Abortion clinic 911 calls - Baby Rowan," You Tube, July 11, 2008 

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfnNzIzvT-k) 

3 "Doctor investigated in badly botched abortion," Associated Press, February 5, 2009 

(http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29037216/#.UZyw3YK0f9I) 

1 
54 

abortionist was convicted only last week of three counts of first-degree murder in 

the deaths ofthree born babies whose spinal cords were "snipped."4 

Also last week came the revelation and photos from three former employees who 

allege that abortionist Douglas Karpen in Houston, Texas, routinely kills babies after 

they are born by puncturing the fontanel (the soft spot at the top of the head), or 

impaling the stomach with a sharp instrument, twisting the head off, or puncturing 

the throat with his fingers. 

It is easy to be horrified by heart-wrenching stories such as these, and to imagine 

the torture abortion survivors endure as they are being killed. 

But it is somehow not so easy for some to envision preborn babies the same age 

being tortured as they are killed by similar methods. 

Today, premature babies are routinely given pain relief who are born atthe same 

age as babies who are torn limb from limb or injected in the heart during abortions. 

The World Health Organization goes so far as to recommend analgesia for preemies 

getting simple heel pricks for a couple drops of blood6. 

Likewise, prenatal surgery is becoming commonplace, and along with it anesthesia 

for babies being operated on, even in the "middle of pregnancy"7. Meanwhile, babies 

of an identical age are torn apart during abortions with no pain relief. 

It must be that some people inexplicably think the uterus provides a firewall against 

fetal pain, or that babies marked for abortion are somehow numb, while their 

wanted counterparts aren't. 

This thinking is better suited for the Middle Ages than for modern medicine. 

1 "Abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell convicted of first-degree murder," NBC News, May 

14,2013 (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/ _news/2013/05/13/18232657-abortiondoctor-kermit-gosnell-convicted-of-first-degree-murder?lite) 

S "Special Report: New stunning photos, testimony shows Texas abortionist kills 

babies born alive," Operation Rescue, May 15, 2013 

(http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/special-report-new-stunning-photostestimony-show-texas-abortionist-kills-babies-born-alivej) 

6 "Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures," WHO 

Reproductive Health Library, June 1, 2011 

(http://apps.who.int/ rhl! newborn/ cdOO 1069 _murkis_com/ en/) 

7 "Anesthesia for fetal surgery," Cincinnati Children's Hospital 

(http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/a/fetal-anesthesia/) 

2 
55 

Yet, while NARAL Pro-Choice America eventually expressed neutrality8 on the BornAlive Infants Protection Act, which provides legal protection to born babies no 

matter what their gestational age or circumstance of birth, NARAL opposes 

legislation protecting babies of the same age from barbaric abortions after the point 

they are known to feel pain. 

Abortion proponents attempt to portray abortionists who commit abortions past 20 

weeks as rare 9. This is a myth. The National Right to Life Committee analyzed lO 

data 11 published in 2008 by the Guttmacher Institute, which is an arm of the 

abortion industry, and found there were "at least 300 abortion providers who will 

perform abortions after 20 weeks LMP (last menstrual period)," and that of 

these, "at least 140 abortion providers willing to abort pain-capable unborn children 

at 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks post-fertilization)." 

As for the number of late abortions committed in this country, no one knows. There 

are no standardized nationwide mandatory abortion-reporting requirements, and 

some of the most liberal jurisdictions, such as California, Maryland, and Washington, 

D.C., don't. Beyond that, it is questionable how many late abortionists comply with 

these requirements, and how much enforcement there is of these laws. 

For instance, when the Elkton, Maryland, office of abortionist Stephen Brigham was 

raided in 2010, investigators found 35 fetuses in his freezer 12, but there were no 

medical records documenting 33 ofthose abortions, much less state reporting. 

The Gosnell Grand Jury Report13 states that from 2000 to 2010 Gosnell reported a 

total of one second-trimester abortion to the state. Yet he may have performed 

thousands during that decade. 

8 "Statement of NARAL on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, June 13, 2001 

(http://www.jillstanek.com/NARALo/o20-0/020Borno/o20Aliveo/o20001.pdf) 

9 '''After Tiller' profiles last four U.S. doctors who do late-term abortions," The Daily 

Beast, January 22, 2013 

(http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/22/after-tiller-profiles-lastfour-u-s-doctors-who-do-late-term-abortions.html) 

10 "How many late term abortions and abortionists are there?", National Right to Life 

News, December 2,2010 

(http://www.nrlc.org/News_and3iews/Dec10/nv120210part3.html) 

11 "Abortion in the United States: Incidence and access to services, 2005," 

Perspectives on sexual and Reproductive Health, March 2008 

(https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4000608.pdf) 

12 "Brigham behind secretive late-term abortion clinic," Philadelphia inquirer, 

September 21,2010 (http://articles.philly.com/2010-09-

21/news /24979408_Llate-term -abortion-steven -chase-brigham -elkton) 

13 "Report ofthe Grand Jury," page 171, January 14, 2011 

(http://www.phila.gov / districtattorney /pdfs/grandj urywomensmedical.pdf) 

3 
56 

Noone knows how many abortions are committed after 20 weeks, so it is false for 

anyone to assert they are "rare." 

It is also a myth that late abortions are mostly committed on babies with handicaps, 

although being handicapped is certainly no excuse for torture. 

Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who commits late abortions at Germantown Reproductive Health 

Services only 30 miles from here, was just caught on tape by Live Action stating he 

routinely commits elective abortions at 26 weeks: "Saw four this week," Carhart 

quipped to Live Action's pregnant investigator, also joking that he uses a "pickaxe" 

and "drill bit" to kill older babies14. 

Only two blocks from the White House, late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo told 

a pregnant Live Action investigator he would kill her healthy 24-week-old preborn 

baby by snipping the umbilical cord 1S, which is akin to cutting the hose of a scuba 

diver, causing death by slow asphyxiation. The website for his Washington SurgiClinic openly advertises dilatation and evacuation abortions up to 26 weeks 16. 

Having actually held a little abortion survivor, I cannot imagine standing there in the 

soiled utility room and tearing him apart to kill him. I expect the thought horrifies all 

of you as well. 

But this is what is done to others like him on a daily basis, their excruciating fate 

determined simply by geography. 

Our nation makes progress when we put an end to senselessly disparate treatment 

of anyone, and certainly of the most vulnerable in our midst. It is time we apply this 

standard to babies on the threshold of life as well. 

11 "Investigation #4: Carhart," Inhuman: Undercover in America's late-term abortion 

industry, May 7, 2013 (http://www.liveaction.org/inhuman/investigation-4-

carhart/) 

15 "Investigation #2: Washington, D.C.," Inhuman: Undercover in America's late-term 

abortion industry, April 29, 2013 

(http://www .Ii veaction.org/ inh urn an/ in vestiga tion -2 -washington -d -c / 

16 http://www.washingtonsurgi-clinic.com/services.html 

4 
57 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Stanek. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions, and 

I will begin by recognizing Mr. Chabot from Ohio for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you calling 

me out of order. 

Before I ask a question, I would like to recognize Ms. Stanek. 

She has been in this fight for a long time. We met many years ago. 

And as a result of your courage to come forward and be willing 

to take the criticism from some people that you revealed what was 

going on in these abortion chambers, babies that you knew that 

survived an abortion, and there were instances where they were 

found in a utility closet, in a garbage can, and a whole bunch of 

other types of things. Because of your willingness to come forward, 

there are at least two pieces of major legislation that were passed 

and are now the law of the land. 

One is the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act to protect those babies that are born when an abortion was intended, but a live baby 

was the result. And then also the ban on partial-birth abortion. 

Both of those landmark pieces of legislation, you were absolutely 

responsible for those things taking place. So thank you for your 

work. 

Now a question. If I could go to you, Dr. Levatino? Ms. Zink related her tragic story, and I think we certainly all sympathize with 

the situation that she faced. She made her choice. 

Now you were an abortion doctor for a number of years and, I 

think you indicated, performed 1,200 abortions altogether. And 

some of those—those were the total number of abortions including 

late-term abortions, or were they just late-term abortions? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Those were total number of abortions I performed 

in private practice. I performed several hundred more in training. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. So my question is, of those—and I know you 

have changed your position 180 degrees since then, and I respect 

you greatly for doing that. But in those abortions that you performed, how many of those abortions would you estimate were 

cases where you had a baby which faced a severe health problem 

and maybe a matter of life and death versus babies which would 

have been born healthy, perhaps lived 70, 80 years, had children 

and grandchildren themselves, experienced the same experiences 

that all the people in this room have, that would have experienced 

the life that we have? 

How many of those that faced the tragic things that Ms. Zink 

faced versus probably a healthy existence that we all have? What 

would be your estimate of that? 

Dr. LEVATINO. I think I can estimate that very well, Congressman. My partners and I did very thorough histories on all of our 

patients who came in for abortions. We weren’t running an abortion mill. This was a routine obstetrics and gynecology practice. 

We did OB. We did GYN. We did abortions. We did deliveries. 

We had no financial incentive to push a patient one way or the 

other. If she wished to have an abortion, we could take care of her. 

If she wished to deliver her child, we could take care of her. 
58 

Of the 1,200 abortions that I performed, 2 were cases of rape or 

incest. Of the other 1,200, approximately a dozen were for fetal 

malformations. The rest were elective. 

Mr. CHABOT. So the vast majority of the babies would have been 

healthy and probably led a productive life? 

Dr. LEVATINO. The vast majority, yes, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. And had children themselves and grandchildren 

themselves someday? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Probably so. 

Mr. CHABOT. And I am not trying to make the pain that you 

went through any harsher here, but the reality is most of these babies—we talk about the exceptional cases here like Ms. Zink’s, but 

in the vast majority of the cases, we are talking about ending the 

lives, the existence of human beings just like ourselves. 

My next question. You had mentioned—well, let me ask you this, 

and I had asked you this question in a previous hearing. What was 

it that made you change your point of view on this? 

Dr. LEVATINO. I was very pro choice through medical school and 

my training, and I guess I proved that by doing abortions in my 

private practice. In 1984, I lost a child of my own to an auto accident and through that experience looked very hard at what I was 

doing as an abortionist. And it became quite intolerable, and I 

stopped. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

And finally, you mentioned what a brutal procedure this is and 

the nature of it, arms and legs, et cetera. But there has also been 

this idea that a war on women, which I think is repugnant that 

people would say that. But is there not a danger to the women 

themselves that are going through these procedures when you are 

reaching in? 

I mean, you mentioned the uterus, for example. You have to be 

careful you don’t perforate the uterus. So is there a danger to the 

woman that undergoes one of these procedures? 

Dr. LEVATINO. There is always a risk. There is a risk with child 

birth. There is a risk with abortion. There is a risk with every medical procedure. There is a risk of infection. There is a risk of perforation of the uterus. There is a risk of death. There is a risk of 

hemorrhage. 

In my career, I had the unpleasant experience during one of 

these abortions, as I said, when you’re reaching in with—rather, a 

stainless steel instrument and reaching in, I had the experience of 

reaching in and pulling, and instead of getting a limb, I got the 

lady’s intestines. 

Just complications do occur. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. LEVATINO. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. 

And I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When Congress passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, 

which I supported, which makes killing any infant born alive illegal—although it was illegal to start with, obviously—Congress was 

very clear that we were not imposing any new duty on 
59 

neonatologists to intervene, especially if the live birth was at a 

stage where survivability was seriously in doubt. 

Given the testimony today, I am concerned that some members 

of this panel would want to impose such a duty even at a very 

early stage of development, say, 20 weeks. Do you take this position, and if so, what should be the dimensions of that duty, Dr. 

Levatino? 

Dr. LEVATINO. If a child is born alive, that child is a person 

under the law and has rights. One of those rights is to proper medical care, period. 

Mr. NADLER. But that is a preexisting medical—I am sorry. It is 

a preexisting legal obligation. So you would not agree that the 

born-alive bill established new neonatology requirements that 

didn’t already exist in law? 

Dr. LEVATINO. I would agree that it didn’t establish anything 

that wasn’t already present in law. Unfortunately, it seems that too 

many physicians, Dr. Gosnell among them, would choose to ignore 

that. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, Dr. Gosnell was convicted of murder. 

Dr. LEVATINO. Too many children, in fact, are being born outside 

of facilities where they can’t even get the care that they are entitled to as citizens. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Ms. Zink, first of all, I want to thank you for 

agreeing to testify today. As a parent, your story was very difficult 

to listen to, and I can’t even begin to imagine how difficult it must 

have been to live through it, much less to come here and describe 

your experience to people. 

So I want to thank you for your willingness to put a human face 

on this question and for your courage in being here. 

One of the really harmful consequences of this bill, in my opinion, is that there are some fetal conditions that cannot be diagnosed before the 20th week of pregnancy. In those situations, the 

tragedy of learning that there is, for example, a fetal anomaly that 

is incompatible with life is compounded by the fact that this bill 

would make it impossible to receive abortion care if that is the 

medically indicated treatment. 

In fact, isn’t it correct that the diagnosis in your case could not 

have been made before the 20th week? 

Ms. ZINK. That’s correct. 

Mr. NADLER. If this bill had been law when you had to face your 

ordeal, your doctors would have had to risk jail and a lawsuit if 

they provided you with the medical services you required. Could 

you comment on that? 

Ms. ZINK. I think that one of the things that I want to say is that 

through all of the presentations about experience, my experience is 

not reflected in any of that. We got excellent medical care. It was 

connected. All of the doctors were speaking to each other. We got 

care before and during and after, and excellent medical, safe care. 

And I think that that sort of notion of not having access to that 

and to know that doctors who are looking at their medical knowledge, looking at each individual case, talking to women, talking to 

families in the way that doctors and patients should be talking to 

each other about what the prognosis is, what the steps are, what 

the range of options are, to cut that off I think is horrible. 
60 

Mr. NADLER. So you think that your liberty, along with your husband, in consultation with your doctor to do what was best for your 

family would have been precluded by this bill? 

Ms. ZINK. Absolutely. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Zink. 

We received a letter today, which I ask be placed in the record 

at this point, from the American Congress of Obstetricians and 

Gynecologists, the American Medical Women’s Association, the 

American Nurses Association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Medical Students for Choice, the National Association of 

Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Physicians Reproductive 

Health, and Planned Parenthood of America. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
61 

May 23, 2013 

Dear Member of tllC House of Representatives, 

We, the undersigned medical organizations, stand in strong opposition to H.R. 1797, the District 

of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, <ponsored by Representative Trent 

franks (R-AZ). This bill would deny women residing in the Distriet of Columbia of safe and 

legal medical eare through governmental interference with the doctor-patient relationship. We 

oppo<e this bill amI any attempt to apply this han nationwide. 

If enacted, H.R. 1797 would ban most abortions in the District of Columbia at 20 weeks after 

fertili,ation. The hill expands medical liability by granting relatives the ability to sue and 

threatens providers with fines and/or imprisonment, all clearly intended to intimidate and 

discourage doctors trom providing abortion care. 

This legislation endangers women by criminalizing safe, legal abortion. With only a narrow and 

inadequate exception for the life and health of a woman, H.R. 1797 would place doctors in the 

untenable position of denying abortions to women in need, including women cmTying a 

pregnancy with severe mId lethal anomalies, which are sometimes nol diagnosed unlil20 weeks 

or later. These include: 

Anencephaly, a '·lethal defect characterized by absence of the hrain and cranium ahove 

the ba<e oflhe skull and orbits;"i 

• Renal agenesis, the failure of kidneys to materialize; 

• Limb-body v ... all complex, in which the organs are often outside the body cavity; 

Severe hean defects; and 

Neural tube defects sneh as encephalocele (the protl1.1sion ofhrain tissue through an 

opening in the skull) and severe hydrocephaly (severe accumulation of t:xccs<ive fluid 

within the brain). 

These and other pregnancy complicalioru; often result in fetal death before or soon after birth. 

The bill attempts to dictate how physicians should care for their patients, based on inaccurate and 

unscientific claims: 

• Gestational Age 

Obstetrician-gynecologists use la<l menstrual period (L,\1P) to date pregnancies. This bill 

seeks to take the determination of gestational age away from medical doctors who are 

trained to make this determination. 

• Fetal Pain 
62 

Mr. NADLER. The letter makes several points. One, that fetal viability is generally regarded as occurring at 24 weeks gestation 

using LMP, last menstrual period, and that this bill, by counting 

from fertilization, falsely implies high survival rates among neonates. 

Two, that the generally held view in the profession is that fetal 

pain does not occur prior to the third trimester, a view found in 

a widely cited Journal of the American Medical Association study 
63 

and a review by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

Three, that severe and lethal anomalies, such as the absence of 

the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, the failure of 

the kidneys to form, organs growing outside the body cavity, severe 

heart defects, and neural tube defects, often are not diagnosed before 20 weeks. 

In light of this, let me ask Dr. Levatino, do you believe it should 

be a crime to perform an abortion post 20 weeks in these cases of 

severe and lethal fetal anomalies? And what would you say to Ms. 

Zink about her tragic situation? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Ms. Zink lost a child, just as I do. And as I told 

her a year ago, I’m sorry for your loss. 

As far as the vast, vast, vast majority of those anomalies are diagnosed prior to this time. Twenty weeks from post fertilization is 

22 weeks from last menstrual period. The vast majority, and I 

would point out even Ms. Zink’s baby, was diagnosed prior to that 

time. 

It’s rare at this point—there are a few cases where they will get 

diagnosed after that time. But the vast majority, you have mentioned a few in that letter, like anencephaly, easily seen on an 

ultrasound at 16 weeks, which is almost routinely performed. 

Mr. NADLER. Excuse me. But the letter that we have from all 

these journals or organizations says that many of these things are 

not—are often not diagnosed before 20 weeks. You are saying they 

are incorrect? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Rare, Congressman. Rare. 

Mr. NADLER. It says often. 

Dr. LEVATINO. That’s what they say. In my experience, rare. And 

I dealt with preemies all the time. 

Mr. NADLER. And what about those rare cases? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Rare cases you take on a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. NADLER. No, but should we make it illegal to perform an 

abortion after 20 weeks in those rare cases of anencephaly, failure 

of kidneys to form, severe heart defects, neural tube defects, and 

so forth, if they are discovered, let us say, in the 21st week? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. And that is a moral judgment on your part, obviously—— 

Dr. LEVATINO. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER [continuing]. Which others may disagree with? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I see my time is expired. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. 

And I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

You know, over the years, if one has worked in this area a long 

time, you become used to people saying, well, you know you are 

just focused on the wrong thing or somehow you should be focusing 

on more important things. But Dr. Martin Luther King said something that occurs to me in a very profound way. He said our lives 

begin to end the day we become silent about things that really matter. 
64 

And I would just suggest to those in the audience, those here on 

the panel that there are some of us that believe this really matters 

because whatever else happens during a late-term abortion, whatever else happens, a child dies a lonely and often painful death. 

The mother is never the same and is often, no matter the circumstances, left with great loss and emotional heartache. And 

whatever gifts that child might have brought to humanity are, of 

course, lost forever. 

And it just occurs to me that if we don’t have the courage or the 

will to protect the most innocent among us, then I wonder if we 

will ever have the will or the courage as a people to protect any 

kind of liberty for anyone. I wonder where we go as a human family. 

And with that, Dr. Levatino, I heard a lot of witnesses, and I find 

your testimony to be so incredibly compelling. And I find myself always wanting to just express a sense of condolence for your loss. 

But I think your little girl would be very, very proud of you. 

Recently, three former clinic employees have come forward with 

allegations against an abortionist in Houston, Texas. One former 

employee, speaking out about late abortions, reportedly alleged 

that, ‘‘Most of the time, the fetus would come all the way out before 

he either cut the spinal cord or introduced one of the instruments 

into the soft spot of the fetus in order to kill the fetus.’’ 

She said, ‘‘Either that or twisting the head off the neck with his 

own bare hands.’’ She alleged that most of the time, ‘‘We would see 

the fetus come all the way out, and of course, the fetus was still 

alive.’’ And allegedly, according to the news report, ‘‘The abortionist 

also suffocated babies by putting his finger down the windpipes.’’ 

Now I’m going to ask for a couple of photos to be shown, reluctantly. To be put on the plasma screens. And they are exceedingly 

gruesome. So I would want to give fair warning to those who might 

want to look away, and we would give you a few moments to do 

that. 

All right. Now, Dr. Levatino, directing your attention to the two 

photos on the screen that were allegedly taken at the abortionist’s 

clinic I spoke of in Houston, Texas, in your estimation, how old 

would you say that this baby—there is two pictures there. How old 

would you say that this baby is? 

Dr. LEVATINO. It’s always difficult to estimate gestational age 

just based on a photograph, but comparing to an adult’s hand, I 

would estimate that child between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation 

from last menstrual period. 

Mr. FRANKS. Now if a healthy baby, otherwise healthy, were born 

alive at that age, what would be his or her chances of long-term 

survival? 

Dr. LEVATINO. The majority would survive. 

Mr. FRANKS. Now looking at the second paragraph—excuse me, 

the second photograph. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. FRANKS. They may be looking at the wrong one, but there 

is a thumb that is inserted in the gash in the baby’s neck, and it 

was the previous one. What might cause a gash like that? 

Dr. LEVATINO. A gash in the base of a baby’s neck is not a birth 

injury. There is no condition or no condition of delivery that I am 
65 

aware of that could possibly cause such an injury. I have seen 

those photographs. 

Mr. FRANKS. And the nature of this would tell you—— 

Dr. LEVATINO. The injury would have to be traumatic and induced and performed on this child after that child was born. 

Mr. FRANKS. And so, it would be made outside the womb rather 

than inside the womb? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Correct. 

Mr. FRANKS. Now whether the baby was inside or outside, would 

it have been painful to the baby, assuming the baby was born 

alive? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Yes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Dr. Levatino. 

Dr. Condic, I know it is difficult, but do you have any observations? 

Ms. CONDIC. No, I am not a physician. I’m a scientist. That’s why 

I really can’t comment on those photographs in a professional capacity. But certainly, as a woman and as a mother, it’s horrifying 

that a child would be treated in this manner. 

Mr. FRANKS. Dr. Levatino, did you have a further point? 

Dr. LEVATINO. No, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. Okay, all right. When we look at these things, I 

know they are hard. But one thing they do do is they put out of 

reach any claim that we didn’t know. And now that we have seen 

those, the question occurs as to whether or not we will come to the 

rescue of these children and find our humanity and hope for better 

days for America, or we will allow ourselves to slide into that Sumerian darkness where the light of compassion has gone out and 

the survival of the fittest is prevailed over humanity. 

And it is an important question. And so, with that, I would now 

yield to Mr. Conyers for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This has been a painful and uncomfortable discussion here today 

for me personally, and I know that Ms. Zink has probably been as 

well. And I wanted to ask you, Ms. Zink, is there anything that you 

would like to add to this discussion, since not an awful lot of questions have been directed to you, about the issues that bring us here 

today in the Judiciary Subcommittee? 

If you do, I would welcome hearing from you at this time. 

Ms. ZINK. I just think it’s worth it to add that this is not a hypothetical situation. This is not a philosophical discussion. This affects real women, real families, real lives, and even if our—if my 

situation is rare, there are many women that it has affected already and who have gone through this. 

And there are many women, unfortunately, it’s a community that 

grows every day of people who face these really awful decisions. 

But it’s something that has to be a private decision to trust the 

doctors and their knowledge, to work with their counsel, to talk to 

our families, and to talk to our counselors. 

And that that’s the reality of how all of this works at a very 

human level. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you for giving us this viewpoint. It is important for the record. 
66 

Dr. Levatino, might I ask you, sir, if you believe children are entitled to healthcare once they are born? I presume that you do. 

Dr. LEVATINO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. We all know that the Affordable Care Act protects 

women and children to ensure that they have the kind of care that 

you alluded to. Do you have any feelings or viewpoint about the Affordable Healthcare Act? 

Dr. LEVATINO. The Affordable Healthcare Act, with respect, I 

don’t think is actually all that relevant to today’s discussion. Like 

most physicians in this country, I guess I have a lot of feelings 

about the Affordable Healthcare Act, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Sure. You are not in support of it? 

Dr. LEVATINO. I’m not sure. It’s such a broad topic. Are you asking about something specifically? 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, yes. Specifically, since we have voted on it 

37 times in the Congress, I am interested in your view. Not anything in specific. There are probably a lot of things we could go 

into, but not in 5 minutes. 

Can you just—well, let me put it like this, Doctor, and I want 

to be fair to you. Could you just say you don’t like it? 

Dr. LEVATINO. No, I couldn’t say that at all. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could you say that you do like it? 

Dr. LEVATINO. No, I couldn’t say that either. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, what—— 

Dr. LEVATINO. The Affordable Care Act, I think, is an effort to 

try to correct a lot of the problems we have with medical care in 

our country. There are a lot of things about the Affordable Care Act 

that I think are just fine. We’re going to provide insurance for people who had difficulty getting insurance. We’re going to—— 

Mr. CONYERS. So you like parts of it, and you don’t like other 

parts. 

Dr. LEVATINO. We’re going to take away the horrible situation 

where—or the difficult situation—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. 

Dr. LEVATINO [continuing]. Where people change jobs and lose 

their insurance. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. 

Dr. LEVATINO. On the other hand, we are depending on young 

people—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Pardon me, sir. 

Dr. LEVATINO [continuing]. To float the system and are just not 

going to do it. 

Mr. CONYERS. I see you are a pretty professional witness, but 

just let me—I got the yellow light, and I don’t want to cut you off. 

But how do you think we should pay for the kind of care necessary 

for expectant mothers at 20 weeks or 24 weeks? 

Dr. LEVATINO. I’m not sure I understand your question, Congressman. 

Mr. CONYERS. If a fetus is born at 20 weeks, do we have an obligation to provide the necessary medical care to that mother? 

Dr. LEVATINO. Yes. 

Mr. FRANKS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that is some progress, and I thank you, Doctor, for your responses. 
67 

Dr. LEVATINO. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. CONYERS. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. The Chair now recognizes Mr. King for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses for your testimony today. As I listen I can’t 

help but reflect upon stepping into the office of one of my district 

employees who happens to also be a State senator. As I sat down 

and borrowed his telephone, I looked up at the shelf, and there was 

a framed picture of the 4-D ultrasound of my godson. 

And I would ask—I think I would ask Dr. Condic do you have 

any—what is your opinion as to the availability of that technology 

and how it might have moved hearts and minds? 

Ms. CONDIC. I think the 4-D ultrasound is a very powerful way 

of looking inside a situation that has been a black box in the past, 

and I think we are very visual creatures. Humans react to things 

they can see. 

And a lot of the emotional disposition of people in the abortion 

debate has centered on the fact that we can’t really see that baby, 

and everything that’s happening, as Dr. Levatino so graphically described, is happening in the dark. So being able to open the womb, 

to a picture of a baby that’s moving, that you can recognize as a 

baby I think has a strong emotional effect because it allows people 

to see what’s really there. Not—not some mass of tissue or blob of 

cells, but—— 

Mr. KING. It is curious that we call it a 4-D ultrasound, but yet 

we can’t hear the sound of the baby. 

Ms. CONDIC. By four dimensions, they mean you see three dimensionally. So you see the baby as not as a flat image, but as a 

projection in space. And then the fourth dimension is time. So you 

can see the baby moving. 

Mr. KING. Well, let us explore that other dimension of sound, and 

it occurs to me that people are emotionally sensitive to sound. And 

I just was thinking this through. I know people that don’t eat any 

red meat, and part of the reason is they can hear in their mind’s 

ear the sound of that animal that is being harvested for our consumption. 

So they don’t eat beef. They don’t eat pork. They say I don’t eat 

red meat. But they might eat chicken or duck probably because the 

sound of a chicken or duck doesn’t trouble them as much. I have 

heard them say that. And then some will not eat poultry, but they 

will eat fish because fish can’t scream for their own mercy. 

And so, I go on down the line to the vegan side of it, no animal 

products and only vegetables, and it occurs to me that those that 

have a dietary preference, that is fine. Those that have a political 

position, I guess that is fine. But some of them, they can’t abide 

the sound of the processing of that animal in their mind’s ear. 

And I recall sitting in this Committee during the partial-birth 

abortion debates that we had, and the description of the partialbirth abortion about babies being delivered to just right an inch before they could fill their lungs with free air and scream for their 

own mercy. 

And it strikes me that that sound is in the mind’s ear of the jury 

of Dr. Gosnell, and it is now in the mind’s ear of the people in this 
68 

country that are deliberating on this. And I would wonder, Doctor, 

if you would comment on that? 

Ms. CONDIC. I think anything that allows people to more realistically understand what a fetus really is and what it’s really capable 

of—its experiences, its reactions, its emotions—is a movement toward honesty. And I would fully support it. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Ms. Stanek, you said that the excruciating fate of the child is determined simply by geography, and I didn’t hear your testimony expand on that. Could you expand on that thought a little for us, 

please? 

Ms. STANEK. Yes, the baby that I held who was between 21 and 

22 weeks old was about the size of my hand, and he didn’t move 

very much because he was just attempting to survive by breathing. 

And after he was pronounced dead, you know, took him to the 

morgue, where we take all our other dead patients. 

And that same age baby, who I held, an abortion survivor, is 

aborted today, going on right now, limb from limb, drawn and 

quartered, as Dr. Levatino described. And whereas, we give pain 

relief to born babies that same age, it is well known, in utero when 

they are being operated on and after they are born, we don’t seem 

to give any care or regard to these same babies if they are not 

wanted, if the moms want to terminate their pregnancies. 

Mr. KING. So that is determined by the prospect of their survival, 

as well as their geography? 

Ms. STANEK. It’s—I’m sorry. What was that? 

Mr. KING. By the prospect of their survival? If the child is receiving surgery in order to save this child—— 

Ms. STANEK. Right. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. As opposed to an operation to kill the 

child? 

Ms. STANEK. Right, right. 

Mr. KING. So the prospects of survival. 

And then if I could just quickly turn to Dr. Levatino, and I would 

ask this opinion. I heard the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, say that this was a painful and uncomfortable experience 

here. Could you compare that painful and uncomfortable experience here to the one that a child goes through? 

Dr. LEVATINO. I have done this my entire professional life. I’ve 

dealt with preemies down to this size and even smaller. Well, certainly down to this size. And I’ve done the abortions firsthand. 

I am dismayed sometimes at particularly the American College 

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. I was a fellow in that organization for over 20 years. I held a leadership post at one point. And 

I withdrew my membership several years ago because of some of— 

despite all the good things that the organization does, and there 

are many, the frankly what I saw as the obvious political stance 

they took on this issue. 

And it bothers me when they talk about, oh, fetuses don’t feel 

any pain at all until they’re viable. Isn’t that amazing? It just suddenly switches on when they’re viable. 

And if anybody thinks that ripping off arms and legs and crushing these children the way we do during these procedures isn’t 
69 

painful, they are just kidding themselves. They are badly kidding 

themselves. 

And when you look at those pictures of that, this abortionist now 

in Houston, I hope he will be properly investigated and possibly 

prosecuted. These children almost had their heads torn off. And if 

you don’t think that’s painful. 

I have been sitting here ruminating a little bit about the letter 

that was read. Very interesting, you know? Children with renal 

agenesis are not entitled to a chance at life? Children with Down 

syndrome are not entitled to a chance to life? Children with different types of brain injuries are not even entitled to a chance to 

live? Is that what we’re championing here? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Doctor. 

I thank all the witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my 

time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. King. 

I am reminded that I had a brother who had Down syndrome 

that was given the chance to live for almost 40 years, and we are 

very grateful. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a first cousin whose mother and our whole family is glad 

that he was—that she carried him and has taken care of him. And 

anyway, it raises difficult issues, and having had a preemie for our 

first child, we weren’t sure what we were getting. We felt like, apparently, it was going to be a girl. But she came so early, this was 

a very difficult time in our lives. 

And Ms. Zink, you have my great sympathy. But having had a 

child who was premature and having sat there, we had an incredible neonatologist in Shreveport, Dr. Tsing, T-s-i-n-g, and I haven’t 

seen him since then. But he had such a love for the children, and 

when we were told we could go either to Dallas or Shreveport, I 

asked about the survivability, and he said we seem to have more 

children live in Shreveport, for whatever reason. 

My wife and I had talked about it. Well, let us go to Shreveport, 

anything we could do for our child, because they were losing her. 

And as you know, among preemies, blindness can be an issue if 

you expose to 100 percent oxygen or too much oxygen too quickly 

because of the blood vessels. The dilation causes the separation or 

the little fingers that come out that separate it from the retina. 

And I knew when they went from 20 to 40 to 60 to 80 percent oxygen very quickly that they were—they knew our baby was in big 

trouble. 

But Dr. Tsing said it is so important that the baby hear your 

voice. Please talk to your baby. Here is a stool beside the isolette, 

and caress her, talk to her. She—her eyes don’t work very well. 

She won’t recognize you, but she will know your voice because she 

has heard you in utero. 

And as you would know, the lungs are about the last to develop. 

They have trouble breathing. Breathing is so shallow and so rapid, 

and the heart rate so erratic. 

But I would, as my wife had said, go do anything you can for our 

baby. They said you can sit for 2 hours, and so I sat. And he said 
70 

caress her, talk to her, and as I did, the little bitty fingers grasped 

around the end of my finger, and I sat there for an hour or so. 

Dr. Tsing came by and said, ‘‘Have you noticed the monitors?’’ 

Breathing still very shallow, heartbeat fast, but they had stabilized 

and not become so erratic. And Dr. Tsing said, ‘‘She is drawing 

strength, she is drawing life from you.’’ 

Well, with that, I couldn’t leave. And after 8 hours, they told me 

I had to take a break. I couldn’t keep sitting there. But I’m helping 

my child. How could I leave? 

But when I read and hear of your account, Doctor, of how a child 

like mine would have the Sopher clamp placed on a leg and then 

ripped from the body, grab an arm and ripped from the body, and 

I think about our little Katie, hanging on to my finger for dear life, 

it is pretty difficult as well. 

Being there in an advanced neonatal ICU, I did see there was 

one child that was born that was missing parts, including a spine. 

And the parents ended up—when it was very clear there was no 

brain activity whatsoever, there was nothing—there were decisions 

that they had to make at that point. 

Ms. Zink, having my great sympathy and empathy both, I still 

come back wondering, shouldn’t we wait like that couple did and 

see if the child can survive before we decide to rip them apart? So 

these are ethical issues. They are moral issues. They are difficult 

issues. 

And the parents should certainly be consulted. But it just seems 

like it is a more educated decision if the child is in front of you to 

make those decisions. So I appreciate all that each of you bring. 

Ms. Stanek, I have known and loved you before I ever saw your 

picture, and I just read the account of what I knew you endured. 

But thank each of you for being here. Thank you for the input that 

each of you bring to this difficult issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. ‘‘This is our first task, caring for our children. It is 

our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. 

That is how as a society we will be judged. 

‘‘Are we really prepared to say that we are powerless in the face 

of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to 

say that such violence visited on our children year after year after 

year is somehow the price of freedom?’’ 

I pray that we would all heed the words of our President, and 

with that, this meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ