19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–496 

PRENATAL NONDISCRIMINATION ACT (PRENDA) OF 2012 

MAY 29, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3541] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 3541) to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the 

basis of sex or race, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 6 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 6 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 29 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 30 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 30 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 38 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 38 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 38 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 40 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 40 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 40 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 43 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 45 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

The Amendment 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 

2012’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress makes the following findings: 

(1) SEX DISCRIMINATION FINDINGS.— 

(A) Women are a vital part of American society and culture and possess 

the same fundamental human rights and civil rights as men. 

(B) United States law prohibits the dissimilar treatment of males and females who are similarly situated and prohibits sex discrimination in various contexts, including the provision of employment, education, housing, 

health insurance coverage, and athletics. 

(C) Sex is an immutable characteristic ascertainable at the earliest stages 

of human development through existing medical technology and procedures 

commonly in use, including maternal-fetal bloodstream DNA sampling, 

amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling or ‘‘CVS’’, and obstetric ultrasound. 

In addition to medically assisted sex-determination, a growing sex-determination niche industry has developed and is marketing low-cost commercial products, widely advertised and available, that aid in the sex determination of an unborn child without the aid of medical professionals. Experts have demonstrated that the sex-selection industry is on the rise and 

predict that it will continue to be a growing trend in the United States. Sex 

determination is always a necessary step to the procurement of a sex-selection abortion. 

(D) A ‘‘sex-selection abortion’’ is an abortion undertaken for purposes of 

eliminating an unborn child of an undesired sex. Sex-selection abortion is 

barbaric, and described by scholars and civil rights advocates as an act of 

sex-based or gender-based violence, predicated on sex discrimination. Sexselection abortions are typically late-term abortions performed in the 2nd 

or 3rd trimester of pregnancy, after the unborn child has developed sufficiently to feel pain. Substantial medical evidence proves that an unborn 

child can experience pain at 20 weeks after conception, and perhaps substantially earlier. By definition, sex-selection abortions do not implicate the 

health of the mother of the unborn, but instead are elective procedures motivated by sex or gender bias. 

(E) The targeted victims of sex-selection abortions performed in the 

United States and worldwide are overwhelmingly female. The selective 

abortion of females is female infanticide, the intentional killing of unborn 

females, due to the preference for male offspring or ‘‘son preference’’. Son 

preference is reinforced by the low value associated, by some segments of 

the world community, with female offspring. Those segments tend to regard 

female offspring as financial burdens to a family over their lifetime due to 

their perceived inability to earn or provide financially for the family unit 

as can a male. In addition, due to social and legal convention, female offspring are less likely to carry on the family name. ‘‘Son preference’’ is one 

of the most evident manifestations of sex or gender discrimination in any 

society, undermining female equality, and fueling the elimination of females’ right to exist in instances of sex-selection abortion. 

(F) Sex-selection abortions are not expressly prohibited by United States 

law or the laws of 47 States. Sex-selection abortions are performed in the 

United States. In a March 2008 report published in the Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences, Columbia University economists Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund examined the sex ratio of United States-born children and found ‘‘evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal 

stage’’. The data revealed obvious ‘‘son preference’’ in the form of unnatural 

sex-ratio imbalances within certain segments of the United States population, primarily those segments tracing their ethnic or cultural origins to 

countries where sex-selection abortion is prevalent. The evidence strongly 

suggests that some Americans are exercising sex-selection abortion practices within the United States consistent with discriminatory practices common to their country of origin, or the country to which they trace their ancestry. While sex-selection abortions are more common outside the United 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

States, the evidence reveals that female feticide is also occurring in the 

United States. 

(G) The American public supports a prohibition of sex-selection abortion. 

In a March 2006 Zogby International poll, 86 percent of Americans agreed 

that sex-selection abortion should be illegal, yet only 3 States proscribe sexselection abortion. 

(H) Despite the failure of the United States to proscribe sex-selection 

abortion, the United States Congress has expressed repeatedly, through 

Congressional resolution, strong condemnation of policies promoting sex-selection abortion in the ‘‘Communist Government of China’’. Likewise, at the 

2007 United Nation’s Annual Meeting of the Commission on the Status of 

Women, 51st Session, the United States delegation spearheaded a resolution calling on countries to condemn sex-selective abortion, a policy directly 

contradictory to the permissiveness of current United States law, which 

places no restriction on the practice of sex-selection abortion. The United 

Nations Commission on the Status of Women has urged governments of all 

nations ‘‘to take necessary measures to prevent . . . prenatal sex selection’’. 

(I) A 1990 report by Harvard University economist Amartya Sen, estimated that more than 100 million women were ‘‘demographically missing’’ 

from the world as early as 1990 due to sexist practices, including sex-selection abortion. Many experts believe sex-selection abortion is the primary 

cause. Current estimates of women missing from the world range in the 

hundreds of millions. 

(J) Countries with longstanding experience with sex-selection abortion— 

such as the Republic of India, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China—have enacted restrictions on sex-selection, and have steadily 

continued to strengthen prohibitions and penalties. The United States, by 

contrast, has no law in place to restrict sex-selection abortion, establishing 

the United States as affording less protection from sex-based feticide than 

the Republic of India or the People’s Republic of China, whose recent practices of sex-selection abortion were vehemently and repeatedly condemned 

by United States congressional resolutions and by the United States Ambassador to the Commission on the Status of Women. Public statements 

from within the medical community reveal that citizens of other countries 

come to the United States for sex-selection procedures that would be criminal in their country of origin. Because the United States permits abortion 

on the basis of sex, the United States may effectively function as a ‘‘safe 

haven’’ for those who seek to have American physicians do what would otherwise be criminal in their home countries—a sex-selection abortion, most 

likely late-term. 

(K) The American medical community opposes sex-selection. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, commonly known as 

‘‘ACOG,’’ stated in its 2007 Ethics Committee Opinion, Number 360, that 

sex-selection is inappropriate because it ‘‘ultimately supports sexist practices.’’ The American Society of Reproductive Medicine ( commonly known 

as ‘‘ASRM’’ ) 2004 Ethics Committee Opinion on sex-selection notes that 

central to the controversy of sex-selection is the potential for ‘‘inherent gender discrimination’’, . . .the ‘‘risk of psychological harm to sex-selected offspring (i.e., by placing on them expectations that are too high),’’. . . and 

‘‘reinforcement of gender bias in society as a whole.’’ Embryo sex-selection, 

ASRM notes, remains ‘‘vulnerable to the judgment that no matter what its 

basis, [the method] identifies gender as a reason to value one person over 

another, and it supports socially constructed stereotypes of what gender 

means.’’ In doing so, it not only ‘‘reinforces possibilities of unfair discrimination, but may trivialize human reproduction by making it depend on the selection of nonessential features of offspring.’’ The ASRM ethics opinion continues, ‘‘ongoing problems with the status of women in the United States 

make it necessary to take account of concerns for the impact of sex-selection 

on goals of gender equality.’’ The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an organization with hundreds of members - many 

of whom are former abortionists - makes the following declaration: ‘‘Sex selection abortions are more graphic examples of the damage that abortion 

inflicts on women. In addition to increasing premature labor in subsequent 

pregnancies, increasing suicide and major depression, and increasing the 

risk of breast cancer in teens who abort their first pregnancy and delay 

childbearing, sex selection abortions are often targeted at fetuses simply because the fetus is female. As physicians who care for both the mother and 

her unborn child, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and 

Gynecologists vigorously opposes aborting fetuses because of their gender.’’ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

The President’s Council on Bioethics published a Working Paper stating the 

council’s belief that society’s respect for reproductive freedom does not prohibit the regulation or prohibition of ‘‘sex control,’’ defined as the use of various medical technologies to choose the sex of one’s child. The publication 

expresses concern that ‘‘sex control might lead to . . .dehumanization and 

a new eugenics.’’ 

(L) Sex-selection abortion results in an unnatural sex-ratio imbalance. An 

unnatural sex-ratio imbalance is undesirable, due to the inability of the numerically predominant sex to find mates. Experts worldwide document that 

a significant sex-ratio imbalance in which males numerically predominate 

can be a cause of increased violence and militancy within a society. Likewise, an unnatural sex-ratio imbalance gives rise to the commoditization of 

humans in the form of human trafficking, and a consequent increase in kidnapping and other violent crime. 

(M) Sex-selection abortions have the effect of diminishing the representation of women in the American population, and therefore, the American 

electorate. 

(N) Sex-selection abortion reinforces sex discrimination and has no place 

in a civilized society. 

(2) RACIAL DISCRIMINATION FINDINGS.— (A) Minorities are a vital part of American society and culture and possess the same fundamental human rights and civil rights as the majority. 

(B) United States law prohibits the dissimilar treatment of persons of different races who are similarly situated. United States law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in various contexts, including the provision 

of employment, education, housing, health insurance coverage, and athletics. 

(C) A ‘‘race-selection abortion’’ is an abortion performed for purposes of 

eliminating an unborn child because the child or a parent of the child is 

of an undesired race. Race-selection abortion is barbaric, and described by 

civil rights advocates as an act of race-based violence, predicated on race 

discrimination. By definition, race-selection abortions do not implicate the 

health of mother of the unborn, but instead are elective procedures motivated by race bias. 

(D) Only one State, Arizona, has enacted law to proscribe the performance of race-selection abortions. 

(E) Race-selection abortions have the effect of diminishing the number of 

minorities in the American population and therefore, the American electorate. 

(F) Race-selection abortion reinforces racial discrimination and has no 

place in a civilized society. 

(3) GENERAL FINDINGS.— 

(A) The history of the United States includes examples of both sex discrimination and race discrimination. The people of the United States ultimately responded in the strongest possible legal terms by enacting constitutional amendments correcting elements of such discrimination. Women, 

once subjected to sex discrimination that denied them the right to vote, now 

have suffrage guaranteed by the 19th amendment. African-Americans, once 

subjected to race discrimination through slavery that denied them equal 

protection of the laws, now have that right guaranteed by the 14th amendment. The elimination of discriminatory practices has been and is among 

the highest priorities and greatest achievements of American history. 

(B) Implicitly approving the discriminatory practices of sex-selection abortion and race-selection abortion by choosing not to prohibit them will reinforce these inherently discriminatory practices, and evidence a failure to 

protect a segment of certain unborn Americans because those unborn are 

of a sex or racial makeup that is disfavored. Sex-selection and race-selection 

abortions trivialize the value of the unborn on the basis of sex or race, reinforcing sex and race discrimination, and coarsening society to the humanity 

of all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult 

to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting— 

indeed it must act—to prohibit sex-selection abortion and race-selection 

abortion. 

(b) CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.—In accordance with the above findings, Congress 

enacts the following pursuant to Congress’ power under— 

(1) the Commerce Clause; 

(2) section 2 of the 13th amendment; 

(3) section 5 of the 14th amendment, including the power to enforce the prohibition on government action denying equal protection of the laws; and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

(4) section 8 of article I to make all laws necessary and proper for the carrying into execution of powers vested by the Constitution in the Government 

of the United States. 

SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE UNBORN ON THE BASIS OF RACE OR SEX. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘§ 250. Discrimination against the unborn on the basis of race or sex 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever knowingly— 

‘‘(1) performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the 

sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child; 

‘‘(2) uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any 

person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion; 

‘‘(3) solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a sex-selection abortion 

or a race-selection abortion; or 

‘‘(4) transports a woman into the United States or across a State line for the 

purpose of obtaining a sex-selection abortion or race-selection abortion; 

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 

5 years, or both. 

‘‘(b) CIVIL REMEDIES.— ‘‘(1) CIVIL ACTION BY WOMAN ON WHOM ABORTION IS PERFORMED.—A woman 

upon whom an abortion has been performed pursuant to a violation of subsection (a)(2) may in a civil action against any person who engaged in a violation of subsection (a) obtain appropriate relief. 

‘‘(2) CIVIL ACTION BY RELATIVES.—The father of an unborn child who is the 

subject of an abortion performed or attempted in violation of subsection (a), or 

a maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the pregnant woman is an 

unemancipated minor, may in a civil action against any person who engaged in 

the violation, obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the 

plaintiff’s criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion. 

‘‘(3) APPROPRIATE RELIEF.—Appropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes— 

‘‘(A) objectively verifiable money damages for all injuries, psychological 

and physical, including loss of companionship and support, occasioned by 

the violation of this section; and 

‘‘(B) punitive damages. 

‘‘(4) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A qualified plaintiff may in a civil action obtain injunctive relief to prevent an abortion provider from performing or attempting further abortions in violation of this section. 

‘‘(B) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph the term ‘qualified plaintiff’ means— 

‘‘(i) a woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted in 

violation of this section; 

‘‘(ii) any person who is the spouse or parent of a woman upon whom 

an abortion is performed in violation of this section; or 

‘‘(iii) the Attorney General. 

‘‘(5) ATTORNEYS FEES FOR PLAINTIFF.—The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under 

this subsection. 

‘‘(c) LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDING.—A violation of subsection (a) shall be deemed for 

the purposes of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be discrimination prohibited by section 601 of that Act. 

‘‘(d) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—A physician, physician’s assistant, nurse, counselor, or other medical or mental health professional shall report known or suspected violations of any of this section to appropriate law enforcement authorities. 

Whoever violates this requirement shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not 

more than 1 year, or both. 

‘‘(e) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION.—It shall be the duty of the United States district 

courts, United States courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court of the United States 

to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any matter brought under this section. 

‘‘(f) EXCEPTION.—A woman upon whom a sex-selection or race-selection abortion 

is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation of this 

section, or for a conspiracy to violate this section. 

‘‘(g) PROTECTION OF PRIVACY IN COURT PROCEEDINGS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except to the extent the Constitution or other similarly 

compelling reason requires, in every civil or criminal action under this section, 

the court shall make such orders as are necessary to protect the anonymity of 

any woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted if she 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

1 H.R. 3541, 112th Cong. § 250(a)-(d) (2011). 

2 Id. § 250(a). 3 Id. § 2(a)(1)(D); § 2(a)(2)(C). 

does not give her written consent to such disclosure. Such orders may be made 

upon motion, but shall be made sua sponte if not otherwise sought by a party. 

‘‘(2) ORDERS TO PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND COUNSEL.—The court shall issue appropriate orders under paragraph (1) to the parties, witnesses, and counsel and 

shall direct the sealing of the record and exclusion of individuals from courtrooms or hearing rooms to the extent necessary to safeguard her identity from 

public disclosure. Each such order shall be accompanied by specific written findings explaining why the anonymity of the woman must be preserved from public 

disclosure, why the order is essential to that end, how the order is narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and why no reasonable less restrictive alternative 

exists. 

‘‘(3) PSEUDONYM REQUIRED.—In the absence of written consent of the woman 

upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted, any party, other than 

a public official, who brings an action under this section shall do so under a 

pseudonym. 

‘‘(4) LIMITATION.—This subsection shall not be construed to conceal the identity of the plaintiff or of witnesses from the defendant or from attorneys for the 

defendant. 

‘‘(h) DEFINITION.—The term ‘abortion’ means the act of using or prescribing any 

instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge 

that the termination by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death 

of the unborn child, unless the act is done with the intent to— 

‘‘(1) save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child; 

‘‘(2) remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion; or 

‘‘(3) remove an ectopic pregnancy.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 13 

of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after the item relating to section 249 the following new item: 

‘‘250. Discrimination against the unborn on the basis of race or sex.’’. 

SEC. 4. SEVERABILITY. 

If any portion of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance 

is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the portions or applications of this 

Act which can be given effect without the invalid portion or application. 

Purpose and Summary 

H.R. 3541, the ‘‘Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 

2012,’’ bans the performance of a sex-selection or race-selection 

abortion, coercion to undergo either, the acceptance or solicitation 

of funds for either, and the transportation of a woman into the 

United States or across state lines to obtain either.1 Persons violating the law would be subject to fines or a maximum of 5 years 

of imprisonment, or both, and a civil cause of action for damages.2

The bill’s findings provide that the proscribed abortions are purely 

elective procedures sought for discriminatory purposes that do not 

implicate the health of the mother.3

Background and Need for the Legislation 

Over the past decade, evidence has come to light suggesting that 

abortion has become a tool of sex and race discrimination in America, for both individuals and government funded entities. H.R. 3541 

provides that no one may discriminate against an unborn child by 

knowingly subjecting that child to an abortion on the basis of sex 

or race. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

4 Jason Abrevaya, Are There Missing Girls in the United States? Evidence from Birth Data, 

American Journal of Applied Economics, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 5, available at http://www.aeaweb.org/ 

articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.1.2.1 5 Id. 

6 Amartya Sen, More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing, The New York Review of Books, 

Vol. 37, No. 20, (December 20, 1990), available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/3408 (last visited July 18, 2008). 7Mara Hvistendahl, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys over Girls, and the Consequences of 

a World Full of Men, Public Affairs Publishing, p. 5–6 (2011). Hvistendahl writes that an estimated 163 million females were demographically ‘‘missing’’ from Asia alone, as early as 2005; 

United Nations Fact Sheet: International Women’s Day 2007, available at http://www.un.org/ 

events/women/iwd/2007/factsfigures.shtml. 8Sunita Puri, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco; 

Vincanne Adams, Department of Anthropology, History, and Social Medicine, University of California, San Francisco; Susan Ivey, Department of Community Health and Human Development, 

University of California, Berkeley; Robert D. Nachtigall, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, 

and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, ‘‘There is Such a Thing as 

Too Many Daughters, but Not Too Many Sons: A Qualitative Study of Son Preference and Fetal 

Sex Selection among Indian Immigrants in the United States,’’ Social Science & Medicine, Volume 72, Issue 7, April 2011, Pages 1169–1176. 9 Carla Power, NS Special Report: But What if it’s a Girl?, The New Statesman, April 24, 

2006. A dais is a traditional midwife, typically in the Asian subcontinent, who delivers babies 

and who, not infrequently, is hired to kill live, newborn baby girls. 10 Nicholas Eberstadt, Global War Against Baby Girls, The New Atlantis; A Journal of Technology and Science (Fall 2011) available at http://www.aei.org/files/2012/01/12/-the-global-waragainst-baby-girlsl094915483477.pdf 11 Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Sex-Selective Abortion—Gendercide, Doc. 

12258, (May 11, 2010) available at http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc10/ 

EDOC12258.pdf (finding that ‘‘gender imbalance constitutes a serious threat to global security,’’ 

and calling on member states to ‘‘condemn sex-selection abortion’’ and to adopt legislative measures ‘‘to restrict the use of prenatal diagnostics strictly to identify medical conditions’’ binding 

the signatories: Italy, the U.K., Spain, Austria, Ireland, Serbia, Estonia, Moldova, Bulgaria, 

Liechtenstein, and Lithuania). (Sex selection techniques are banned or restricted by India, 

China, the United Kingdom, Australia, and many European countries. Indian Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (‘‘MTPN Act’’), as amended in 2002, and The Pre-Natal Diagnostic 

Continued 

SEX-SELECTION ABORTION

Sex-selection abortion is defined in the findings of H.R. 3541 as 

‘‘an abortion undertaken for the purpose of eliminating a child of 

an undesired sex.’’ While sex-selection can be achieved outside the 

abortion context through sperm sorting and embryo selection, these 

techniques are not widely available or affordable, and make up a 

small fraction of sex-selection procedures.4 Most sex-selection takes 

the form of abortion.5

The revelation that hundreds of millions of girls are ‘‘missing’’ 

due to sex-selection and other deadly discriminatory practices came 

to light when Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen penned his famous 

article for the The New York Review of Books documenting that approximately 100 million women were demographically absent from 

the world as early as 1990.6 Because of scant reporting in the third 

world, the full extent of this problem is unknown. Current estimates are that approximately 200 million women and girls are ‘‘demographically missing’’ from the world due to sex-selection abortion, female infanticide, and other practices that lead to infant or 

early childhood mortality among baby girls.7

Sex-selection abortion is a form of violence against women and 

girls (the mother and the unborn child).8 Sex-selection abortion is 

most common in parts of the world where dowries, bride burnings, 

widow immolations, the killing of newborn girls by dais,9 forced 

abortions, trafficking, and other uncommonly savage offenses 

against females are most common.10 But it is also a tragedy that 

it occurs in the United States. 

In most industrialized countries, sex-selection generally is 

banned or restricted. The United States is the notable exception.11


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act (1994) (‘‘PNDT Act’’), No. 57, as amended 

in 2002 by the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse Act), 

No. 14 ; Mother and Child Heath Law of the People’s Republic of China (1994); Population and 

Family Planning Law of the People’s Republic of China (2002); see also Regulation on Prohibiting Fetal Sex Identification and Selective Termination of Pregnancy for Non-medical Reasons, 

adopted at Fifth Session of the Ninth Standing Committee of Shandong Provincial People’s Congress (November 21, 1998); The Abortion Act of 1967, c. 87, sec. 7 (United Kingdom); Australian 

National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992, No. 225/1990; Sex-selection by pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is forbidden by law in India, South Australia, Canada, the United 

Kingdom, and ten other European countries. Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 

(2004), S.C. chapter 2, s. 5(e)). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of 

the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: ch.4, art. 14, (Oviedo, 

4.IV.1997)(‘‘The use of techniques of medically assisted procreation shall not be allowed for the 

purpose of choosing a future child’s sex, except where serious hereditary sex-related disease is 

to be avoided’’) binding signatories that have ratified the document, including Albania, Bosnia 

and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Norway, Portugal, Republic of 

Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, the former 

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Turkey, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/ 

Html/164.htm, list of signatories and ratification dates available at http://treaties.un.org/pages/ 

showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028008c3a6 ; Taking a Stand: Tools for Action on Sex-Selection, 

a collaborative project of the Generations Ahead, National Asian Pacific American Women’s 

Forum (NAPAWF), and Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice, p. 4, available at http:// 

napawf.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Toolkit-final.pdf. 12 Abrevaya, supra note 4, at 2–5. 13Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund, Son Biased Sex Ratios in the 2000 United States Census, 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 

15 (April 2008). 14Sujatha Jesudason, Miriam Yeung & Eveline Shen, Taking a stand, tools for action on sexselection, Generations Ahead, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF), and 

Asian Communities For Reproductive Justice (ACRJ), (Accessed May 7, 2012), Page 12, http:// 

napawf.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Toolkit-final.pdf. 15 Jason Roberts, Customizing Conception: A Survey of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and 

the Resulting Social, Ethical, and Legal Dilemmas, DUKE L. & TECH. REV., 0012, 26. (2002). 16 Id. 17 Id. 

U.S. census data and national vital statistics show some Americans are employing sex-selection techniques in their reproductive 

decisions.12 Certain communities within the United States are 

achieving sex ratios that are unnatural and statistically impossible 

without medical intervention. These unnatural sex ratios strongly 

favor the birth of males over females.13 Reproductive rights groups 

maintain that immigrant communities bring the sex-biases of their 

native land with them when they immigrate.14

The American native-born population also harbors attitudes favoring son preference. In one study, twenty-five percent of American couples claimed that they would consider utilizing a pre-implantation (non-abortive) sex selection technique; Males would fare 

far better than unborn females, with ‘‘81 percent of men and 94 

percent of women admitting that they would desire their first child 

to be a boy.’’ 15

The natural ratio of male to female births is 1.05:1.16 In April 

2008, two economists from Columbia University demonstrated 

through Census 2000 data that unnatural sex ratios exist for births 

in Asian-American communities. For example, among Indian-American families whose first two children are daughters, the male to 

female sex ratio for third children is 1.51:1 (compared with the natural ratio of 1.05:1). Restated, boys outnumber girls by 50% among 

third children born in America to Indian-American parents. This 

ratio is not possible as a natural outcome. 

The economists concluded that the sex-ratio imbalance is the result of ‘‘sex-selection, most likely at the prenatal stage,’’ meaning 

most likely due to sex-selection abortion.17 Given the years examined in the 2000 U.S. Census (1990–2000), there is no other likely 

explanation. The only two alternative sex-selection techniques that 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

18 Abrevaya, supra note 4, at 5. 19 Id. 20Sam Roberts, U.S. Births Hint at Bias for Boys in Some Asians, New York Times, June 

14, 2009. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24G. Sharat Lin, PhD., Advanced Imaging Associates of Fremont, CA, Presentation before the 

American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM), San Diego, CA (March 2010). 

could produce the sex imbalance—sperm sorting and embryonic 

stage sex-selection (also called Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis 

or ‘‘PGD’’)—were not widely available at that time.18 Further, the 

cost of non-abortive sex-selection techniques is prohibitive for many 

couples.19

American physicians admit that sex-selection is a reality in the 

United States. Dr. Norbert Gleicher, medical director of the Center 

for Human Reproduction, a fertility and sex-selection clinic with offices in New York and Chicago, concedes that Americans of Asian 

and Middle Eastern descent prefer males.20 A 1989 study of sexselection in New York City, conducted by Dr. Masood Khatamee, 

clinical professor at New York University Medical Center, found 

that all the foreign-born couples surveyed—mostly from Asia and 

the Middle East—preferred boys, predominantly for cultural and 

economic reasons. Often, the pressure to sex-select is applied by 

the husband’s parents.21

Some physicians are working to discourage sex-selection in the 

United States. Dr. Lisa Eng, a Hong Kong-born gynecologist who 

practices in New York’s Chinatown actively discourages couples 

who prefer boys from opting for sex-selection abortions. But, she 

said, ‘‘If it’s going to be a third [child], they’re pretty determined 

to have a boy. If it’s a boy, they keep it. If it’s a girl, they’ll abort.’’ 

22

SEX-SELECTION MAY BE MORE PRONOUNCED IN SUB-COMMUNITIES

IN THE UNITED STATES THAN IN ASIA

Sex-selection practices do not subside in a Western environment 

where girls are valued equally; Sex-selection in American immigrant communities can be more pronounced than in those communities’ countries of origin. Professor Jason Abrevaya, an economist 

at the University of Texas, surveyed census and birth records 

through 2004 to compare the sex ratio of males to females at birth 

among Chinese immigrant families. Abrevaya discovered that the 

unnatural sex-ratio favoring boys among immigrant Chinese parents in New York was higher than the national average for Chinese families living in mainland China, where boys typically account for about 515 boys of every 1,000 births. Specifically, among 

Chinese New Yorkers having a third child, the number of boys was 

an astounding 558 boys per 1000 births.23 In California, the sex 

ratio among ethnic Chinese in Santa Clara County has been as low 

as 784 girls per one thousand male births, and statewide, the ratio 

among Asians in urban counties ranges between 888 and 927 girls, 

per 1000 male births.24

Experts speculate that this exacerbation of the problem is supported by the Western world’s greater access to healthcare that includes sex-determination tests (ultrasound, CVS, and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

25 Abrevaya, supra note 4, at 3. 26Puri, supra note 8, at 1175. 27 Abrevaya. supra note 4, at 27. 28 Rajani Bhatia et al., Sex Selection: New Technologies, New Forms of Gender Discrimination, 

CTR. GENETICS & SOC’Y (Oct. 2003), available at http://genetics-and-society.org/resources/ 

background/factsheet.html . 29Patti Neighmond, Study: Sixth Time May Be Charm For In Vitro, ‘‘Day to Day’’, National 

Public Radio, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99654924, January 21, 2009. 

(PGD must be followed by an in vitro fertilization procedure (each in vitro fertilization is known 

as an implantation cycle) and often multiple cycles must be performed before a successful implantation and successful live birth results. For example, one study reported a 45% to 53% live 

birth rate after three implantation cycles, and a success rate of between 51% and 71% after six 

implantation cycles. A sex-selection using this method would only have a 50% chance of success 

only after 3—6 implantation cycles, meaning that the production of the sex-selected child could 

cost between $54,000.00 and $108,000.00 ($18,000.00 average cost of an implantation cycle 

times 3 or 6)). 30Microsort, an American company offering sperm sorting, claims a success rate of 85% for 

couples who desire a boy. http://www.microsort.net. 31 Center for Reproductive Rights, Statement of Policies and Principles on Discrimination 

Against Women and Sex-Selective Abortion Bans, Sep. 29, 2009, available at http:// 

reproductiverights.org/en/document/statement-of-policies-and-principles-on-discriminationagainst-women-and-sex-selective-abortion. 

amniocentesis).25 This theory received support from a study of Indian-American women who have undergone sex-selection abortions 

in the United States; participants reported that the ready availability and legality of ultrasound technology in the U.S. increased 

the pressure and even ‘‘obligation’’ to use the technology to seek out 

and destroy unborn girls.26

Professor Abrevaya’s review of census and birth records showed 

that Americans have sex-selected thousands of baby girls.27

NOT ALL SEX-SELECTION IS ABORTION; BUT MOST OF IT IS

Children are being commoditized by sex-selection abortion practices. The desired ‘‘product’’ is nearly always a son. While it is true 

that sons could be intentionally procured by methods other than 

aborting unwanted females, abortion is likely to be the method of 

choice because it is the least expensive—by a large margin. With 

sex-selection techniques turning unborn children into products 

available in the marketplace, the laws of supply and demand come 

into play. If a given sex-selection technique offers a son for a fraction of the cost of a different sex-selection technique, one may expect that the demand for the product at the lower ‘‘price’’ will far 

exceed the demand for the product at the higher price. 

Sex-selection abortion is the most economical choice of the three 

methods, costing only a small fraction (between $300 and $3,000, 

depending on the trimester) of what the other two methods would 

cost (approximately $10,000 for sperm sorting 28 and between 

$54,000 and $108,000 on average for PGD, using an average cost 

of $18,000 per implantation cycle for PGD).29

Furthermore, sperm sorting and PGD have a lackluster success 

rate. Sperm sorting only succeeds 70–80% of the time, meaning 

that a child of the undesired sex is inadvertently produced through 

the technique.30 PGD is often completely unsuccessful, with all implanted embryos failing to thrive after an $18,000 implantation 

cycle. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 

(‘‘ACOG’’) has published a public statement that ‘‘[n]o current technique for pre-fertilization sex selection [sperm sorting] has been 

shown to be reliable.’’ 31 Therefore, where the ‘‘product’’ desired is 

a son, the rational choice is to conceive for free and then to abort 

females repeatedly for a small price until a son is ‘‘achieved,’’ rathVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:18 May 29, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR496.XXX HR496

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

32 Rajani Bhatia et al., Sex Selection: New Technologies, New Forms of Gender Discrimination, 

Ctr. Genetics & Soc’y, Oct. 2003, available at http://genetics-and-society.org/resources/background/factsheet.html. 33 H. Res. 530, 108th Cong. (2004); H. Res. 794, 109th Cong. (2006). (In 2007, the United 

States unsuccessfully pushed a resolution at the United Nations to condemn sex-selection abortion worldwide.) Draft Agreed Conclusions on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination and 

Violence Against the Girl Child, Commission on the Status of Women, 51st Session, (26 February—9 March 2007). (Further, the U.S. Congress has passed resolutions condemning the People’s Republic of China for its failure to end sex-selection and violence against girls). 34 IL ST CH 720 § 510/6; 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 3204(c) (1994); AZ ST § 13–3603.02 (2011). 35 Carey Goldberg, Test Reveals Gender Early in Pregnancy; Ethicists Fear Use in Sex Selection, Boston Globe, June 27, 2005. 36Sam Roberts, U.S. Births Hint at Bias for Boys in Some Asians, New York Times, June 

14, 2009. 37See http://www.intelligender.com/intelligender-gender-prediction-test.html. 38Karen Kaplan, Problems Follow Early Reads on Baby’s Sex, Los Angeles Times, March 2, 

2008 (reprinted in the China Post). 39 Id. 40Dr. Rajendra Kale, ‘‘It’s a Girl!’’—Could be a Death Sentence, Canadian Medical Association 

Journal, NRC Research Press, January 2012, available at http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/ 

01/16/cmaj.120021. 

er than pay potentially tens of thousands of dollars for a procedure 

that has a significant failure rate.32

This calculation is currently perfectly legal; the United States is 

one of very few industrialized nations that do not restrict the various methods of sex-selection—despite our continuous condemnation of other countries that permit the practice.33 The states are little better, with only three states having passed sex-selection abortion prohibitions: Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.34

Sex-selection is on the rise and has given birth to a growing 

niche industry.35 Demographers believe there exists a ‘‘growing 

tendency for American families to embrace sex-selection techniques, like in vitro fertilization and sperm sorting, or abortion.’’ 36

Sex-selection abortion is made easier (and less expensive) by 

emerging, over-the-counter products that promise to reveal the sex 

of an unborn child as early as 5 weeks after fertilization, meaning 

that a woman could have a sex-selection abortion in the first trimester rather than the second, reducing medical risks and fees. 

One product, the Baby Gender Mentor Home DNA Gender Testing 

Kit, sells for less than $300. It claims to be 99.9% accurate as early 

as five weeks after conception, but no scientific evidence is yet 

available to confirm the claim.37 The manufacturer of this product 

has been sued for alleged misrepresentation about its ability to predict the sex of the child.38 Tellingly, the plaintiffs may well be 

suing on the basis that they would have aborted their child had the 

product worked as advertised.39

AMERICA AS A CAPITAL OF THE SEX-SELECTION MARKET

America has become a center for the lucrative international sexselection market that crosses state and international lines. 

Women cross the border from Canada to obtain sex-selection 

abortions in the United States. An editorial in the January 2012 

edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal drafted by 

Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Rajendra Kale, argues that sex-selection abortion is a serious problem among certain communities in Canada, 

and that physicians should refrain from revealing the sex of the 

baby until 30 weeks, the point at which Canada law forbids abortion.40 In a radio interview with CBC Toronto host, Matt Galloway, 

Aruna Papp, Canadian counselor with Family Services, York ReVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:18 May 29, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR496.XXX HR496

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

gion, confirms that women in Canada who want sex-selection abortions will go to the United States to get them: 

MG: In the wake of this [Canadian Medical Association] 

editorial being published yesterday, there has been some 

dispute as to how common this issue [sex-selection abortion] is in Canada. 

AP: It is very common! It is very common! 

MG: What then—. 

AP: And nobody is keeping data because the doctors can’t 

keep data. It is so easy to have that kind of ultrasound 

here in Canada, fly down to India, have an abortion. Go 

down to Buffalo. Go down to Michigan. Have your abortion 

and come back. 

MG: How often is something like this happening? I mean 

again that—I think that it strikes a lot of people or it 

would strike a lot of people very strongly wondering how 

this—this could exist in Canada now. That perhaps there 

are other regions of the world where this does happen. But 

people would say ‘‘no, this simply is not happening.’’ 

AP: It is happening here! We are not allowed to keep data. 

We don’t know how many are happening. I can say that 

in 6 months so many women have come. We have agency 

Punjabi Health Services in Peel region. It is the top problem there related to mental illness. In South Asian Settlement Services in Scarborough, for example, the top problem there is related to mental illness, depression, and attempted suicide. 

MG: If it is an issue that is prevalent but also taboo because you can’t keep statistics and people don’t like talking 

about it, how do you through your agency actually reach 

out and deal with this issue on the level that people are 

willing to talk about it? 

AP: We can’t reach out because we have to wait until they 

come to us. There is such a backlash from the community 

and everyone denies it. But it’s only the service providers, 

the doctors, who send the clients to us, who can tell you 

that this is going on. Women can’t talk about it publicly. 

If they do, then there is no place for them to go. They can’t 

go back to their husbands and in-laws and talking about 

it. But also because they are women who don’t want to 

have more than two or three children themselves, but the 

pressure comes from the family. 

MG: What can you do to tell those women that girls are 

valued in our society? 

AP: We have been working at it the last 30 years. . . . 

Just service providers like myself talking about it, 

makes—is not enough . . . the backlash is you’re perpetuating racism, you’re perpetuating stereotype, negative 

things about the community. If we own the problem, then 

as a community we can start making the changes from inVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:18 May 29, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR496.XXX HR496

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

41 Id. 42 Rich Lowry, The Backwardness of Abortion, (citing the New York Times), National Review 

Online, August 23, 2001. 43Fertility Institute promotional video, available at http://frfbaby.com/default.aspx and http:// 

www.fertility-docs.com/fertilitylgender.phtml.) 44Susan Sachs, Clinics Pitch to Indian E ́ migre ́s: It’s a Boy, The New York Times, Aug. 15, 

2001, available at http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=118. 45The Fertility Institute, available at www.fertility-docs.com/fertilitylgender.phtml. The Fertility Institute states that they can ‘‘virtually guarantee’’ that one’s child will be the sex of one’s 

choice. 46Steven Ertelt, New Abortion Center in New York Targets Brits Who Want Sex-Selection 

Abortions, (Aug. 24, 2009), http://archive.lifenews.com/state4370.html. 

side. And outside service providers are doing their 

best . . . ’’ 

Ms. Paap described the fear that an Indian woman feels by virtue 

of being a female and failing to bear sons in her culture: 

‘‘We had six girls [in my family] and I—. My earliest 

memories is from when I was 5 years old, my grandmother 

saying, you know, there are so many girls in this family 

now and I’m going to have to drop some of you in the well. 

So I grew up wondering which one of us was going to be 

dropped in the well that day. So that kind of fear is very 

common. But also in new brides. Even the first and second 

generation girls who are born here [Canada] and brought 

up here are under pressure to produce boys. For many of 

them, they do not want to have two—more than two or 

three children. And one of them, especially the first one, 

should be a boy. And by the time they come to us—by the 

time to the medical doctors, they are suffering from depression. They are suffering from many other physical ailments that are related to two, three, or four abortions.’’ 41

While American fertility clinics tend to not overtly advertise sexselection abortion services, the New York Times has reported that 

sex-selection services target the Indian-American community 

through Indian-American publications with enticements such as 

‘‘Boy or Girl? We will tell you,’’ with at least one of the advertisers 

strongly hinting at abortion.42

The Fertility Research Foundation is another U.S. based organization that offers embryo sex-selection.43 Until 2001, this company 

advertised its ‘‘family balancing’’ program in India Abroad Newspaper—a newspaper targeted towards Indian-Americans in the 

U.S. India Abroad stopped accepting sex-selection clinic ads in 2001 

because its new owners, India Ltd., ‘‘felt a little queasy . . . ’’and 

didn’t ‘‘want to be remotely associated with anybody that discriminates for a boy child over a girl child. It’s wrong to discriminate.’’ 44

Dr. Jeffery Steinberg owns the abovementioned New York-based 

Fertility Institute, which touts itself as ‘‘A Leading World Center 

for 100% PGD Gender Selection.’’ 45 Dr. Steinberg told the London 

Times that nearly half the people who go to his clinic for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD, or sex-selection at the embryonic stage) sex-selection are from the U.K., where sex-selection 

through PGD is now banned.46

The American near-monopoly on legal sex-selection has presented Steinberg with a financial windfall, and he states ‘‘Britain 

is far more conservative than it used to be. They were the 

innovators but now they’ve got handcuffs on . . . [f]rom a business 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

47 Id. 48See http://www.fertility-docs.com/. 49Mimi Rohr/Gamma, Fertility Institutes: The Clinic That Helps Couples To Choose The Sex 

of Their Babies, (2006) available at www.editorial.fnphoto.com/stories/Texts/2332-text.html. Success rates for in-vitro fertilization ranges from 65%-80% and the center advertises a 99% chance 

of getting the gender desired for successful implantations. Fertility Institutes charges from 

$18,000 to $19,000 for each gender selection in-vitro fertilization procedure attempt. Fifty percent of Steinberg’s patients come from countries other than the US. 50William Saletan, Sex-Selection: Nobody’s Business? Slate, (June 15, 2009). 51 Abrevaya, supra, note 4 at 5. 52 Id.; My Health News Daily, MSNBC, (Jan. 16, 2012) available at http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/lnews/2012/01/16/10168064-keep-babys-sex-secret-to-prevent-gender-basedabortions-doc-says. 53See http://www.americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/abortionprocedures.html. 54 Id. 55 18 U.S.C. § 1531 (2003). The Partial Birth Abortion ban became law in 2003, after the conclusion of the various studies that show the occurrence of sex-selection in the United States. 56See also www.doctorsonfetalpain.org. 

standpoint, it’s the best thing going [for American physicians]. 

From a medical standpoint, it’s a travesty.’’ 47

The Fertility Institute has offices in Los Angeles, New York, and 

Mexico, complete with an international travel desk that assists individuals across the globe to reach their facilities.48 Dr. Steinberg 

states that ‘‘Gender selection is a commodity for purchase . . . if 

you don’t like it, don’t buy it.’’ 49

Dr. Steinberg says that his clinics get requests from ‘‘every nation on earth’’ and are ‘‘able to accommodate them.’’ ‘‘For the first 

time in the history of mankind,’’ he claims to be able to guarantee 

the sex of your child. Additionally, Steinberg’s clinics advertise as 

a ‘‘haven’’ for gay couples looking to design a family. This and other 

advertisements, operating under the permissiveness of U.S. law, 

demonstrate that the U.S. is poised to become the world capital of 

sex-selection. While the advertisers are typically not so bold as to 

offer sex-selection abortion explicitly, the trend lines are clear. As 

William Saletan asks in Slate Magazine, if it’s fine to advertise for 

sex-selection PGD, why not sex-selection abortion? 50

While the existence and success of Dr. Steinberg’s clinics support 

H.R. 3541’s findings that sex-selection is on the rise and international in scope, this type of service remains a luxury in that the 

advertised services are pre-implantation, and therefore, very expensive. The great majority of the market opts for the ultrasound and 

a grisly late-term abortion (after the first trimester).51

THE BRUTALITY OF THE TYPICAL SEX-SELECTION ABORTION

The typical sex-selection abortion is late-term and often violent. 

This is because the ultrasound is the most common technology used 

to determine sex, and it is typically employed between the 16th and 

the 22nd week, post-fertilization.52 The pregnancy has reached the 

second trimester, and is approaching the third trimester. Abortions 

at this stage are complicated, high risk and violent, because the 

RU–486 pill and dilation and suction are not sufficient to end the 

life of the unborn child.53 Late term abortions may be saline abortions (the unborn child is slowly suffocated and burned with the injection of a saline solution into the uterus), lethal injection by chest 

puncture and delivery abortions, or dismemberment abortions.54

Prior to the passage of the partial-birth abortion ban, sex-selections 

may have taken this form as well.55

Medical evidence proves that unborn children can feel pain at 20 

weeks gestation, if not substantially earlier.56 In most states there 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

57 Id. 58 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Ethics. Committee 

Opinion: Sex-Selection. No. 360, Feb. 200, available at http://www.acog.org/fromlhome/publications/ethics/co360.pdf. 59 Id. 60 United Nations, Gender Equality, Equity, and Empowerment of Women. Population and Development: Programme of Action adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development, New York, p. 17–21 (September 5–13, 1994). 61 Ethical Guidelines on Sex-Selection for Non-Medical Purposes, FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. Intl. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 92: 329– 

30 (2006). An abortion to eliminate an unborn child with a sex-linked disease is sometimes referred to as an abortion for ‘‘medical purposes’’ or ‘‘therapeutic purposes.’’ 62London Daily Telegraph, Abortion law is clear, Interview with Marie Stops Medical Director 

Paula Franklin, February 23, 2012, available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/ 

9101549/Marie-Stopes-medical-director-abortion-law-is-clear.html. 63 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Ethics, supra, note 58. 64 Id. 65 Id. 

is no legal requirement that a physician inform a patient that the 

unborn can feel pain, nor a legal requirement that a patient pay 

the added expense of anesthesia for the unborn child (although a 

few states are considering laws to do so).57 Therefore, the government’s failure to prohibit sex-selection abortions will likely lead to 

elective, completely unnecessary, painful abortions of healthy baby 

girls, for no reason other than that they are female. 

MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS OPPOSE SEX-SELECTION, EXCEPT WHEN USED

TO ELIMINATE SEX-LINKED DISEASES

Medical associations worldwide oppose sex-selection abortion, except in cases involving sex-linked diseases.58 The reason for opposing sex-selection is uniform: the desire to combat discrimination.59

Abortion to eliminate sex-linked diseases does not implicate sex 

discrimination, therefore medical associations find that sex-selection for this reason is ‘‘therapeutic’’ and permissible. The Programme of Action adopted by the United Nations International 

Conference on Population and Development urges all nations ‘‘to 

take necessary measures to prevent . . . prenatal sex-selection’’ except for elimination of sex-linked diseases.60 Likewise, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics rejects sex-selection for ‘‘non-medical’’ purposes.61 Even Paula Franklin, the Medical Director of Marie Stopes International, perhaps the world’s 

largest abortion franchise, states that sex-selection abortions are 

‘‘not medically appropriate.’’ 62

American medical associations are mostly in conformity with the 

opinions of the world bodies. The American College of Obstetrics 

and Gynecology (ACOG) opposes sex-selection abortion, and other 

forms of sex-selection, except to eliminate sex-linked diseases.63

Specifically, ACOG posited ‘‘. . . [T]he committee opposes meeting 

requests for sex selection for personal and family reasons, including 

family balancing, because of the concern that such requests may ultimately support sexist practices.’’ 64 The American Society of Reproductive Medicine opposes sex-selection of embryos for any reason unrelated to sex-linked diseases, on the basis that sex-selection 

reinforces discriminatory prejudices.65

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT’S STATED POSITION AGAINST

SEX-SELECTION ABORTION

In 2007, the U.S. delegation to the United Nations Commission 

on the Status of Women advocated for a resolution condemning sexVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:18 May 29, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR496.XXX HR496

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

66 H. Res. 530, 108th Cong. (2004); H. Res. 794, 109th Cong. (2006). (In 2007, the United 

States unsuccessfully pushed a resolution at the United Nations to condemn sex-selection abortion worldwide.) Draft Agreed Conclusions on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination and 

Violence Against the Girl Child, Commission on the Status of Women, 51st Session, (26 February—9 March 2007). 67 H. Res. 530, 108th Cong. (2004); H. Res. 794, 109th Cong. (2006). 68 18 U.S.C.A. § 13. 69The Abortion Act of 1967, c. 87, § 7 (U.K.). 70 Claire Newell and Holly Watt, London Daily Telegraph, Abortion Investigation: Doctors 

Filmed Agreeing to Abortions, No Questions Asked, February 22, 2012, available at http:// 

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9099511/Abortion-investigation-doctors-filmed-agreeingillegal-abortions-no-questions-asked.html. 71 Allison Pearson, In the Third World, Unwanted Baby Girls Disappear. It’s Called 

Gendercide. And it is Happening Here Too, London Daily Telegraph, February 24, 2012 available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9103831/In-the-third-world-unwanted-babygirls-disappear.-Its-called-gendercide.-And-its-happening-in-this-country-too.html. 72 Holly Watt, Claire Newell, and Robert Winnett, London Daily Telegraph, Scotland Yard 

Launches Investigation into Doctors who Agreed to Illegal Abortions of Baby Girls, February 12, 

2012, available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9103839/Scotland-Yardlaunches-investigation-into-doctors-who-agreed-to-illegal-abortions-of-baby-girls.html. 

selection abortion worldwide.66 The U.S. House of Representatives 

has passed resolutions condemning the People’s Republic of China 

for its failure to end sex-selection abortion and gendercide.67

ENFORCEABILITY

A common criticism of sex-selection bans is the difficulty of enforcement. The motive for obtaining an abortion is a key element 

of the crime, and opponents argue that the motive will often be impossible to ascertain. H.R. 3541 does not add a requirement that 

health care providers inquire as to the reasons a woman seeks 

abortion. 

H.R. 3541 is a civil rights law, specifically amending the Civil 

Rights section of the U.S. criminal code.68 While enforcement presents challenges due to proof issues, this is true of all civil rights 

laws where the motive for adverse action is a key element of the 

offense. Even so, the United States has successfully prosecuted violations of civil rights laws, and H.R. 3541 can be adequately enforced as well. 

THE UNITED KINGDOM’S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS SEX-SELECTION

ABORTION BAN

Sex-selection abortion is banned in the U.K.69 As in the United 

States, healthcare professionals in the U.K. encounter sex-selection 

mostly as a cultural practice among persons tracing their lineage 

to countries where sex-selection abortion is common. In both England and Wales, there is evidence that parents choose to abort females more often than males.70 The London Daily Telegraph reports that sex-selection abortion is believed to be ‘‘fairly widespread’’ in the U.K.71

In February 2012, the London Daily Telegraph reported that it 

conducted a sting operation against multiple abortion providers to 

see if medical professionals would violate the law by agreeing to 

perform or facilitate sex-selection abortions. Acting on specific information that doctors were performing sex-selection abortions in 

violation of British law, undercover reporters accompanied pregnant women to nine clinics where the women requested a sex-selection abortion. Three of the nine clinicians agreed to schedule the 

illegal abortions, with one of the clinicians, Dr. Raj Monan, acknowledging on tape that a sex-selection abortion is comparable to 

‘‘female infanticide.’’ 72 A second offender, Ms. Prabha Sivaraman, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

73 Newell, supra, note 68. 74Watt, supra, note 70. 75 Id. 76 Newell, supra, note 68. 77 Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Sex-Selective Abortion—Gendercide, Doc. 

12258, May 11 2010, available at http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc10/ 

EDOC12258.pdf.(This motion binds the signatories, including Italy, the U.K., Spain, Austria, 

Ireland, Serbia, Estonia, Moldova, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein, and Lithuania.) 

said, ‘‘I don’t ask questions’’ about the reason for the abortion, although she had already been told, and she urged her physician colleague to cover the crime through the private health care system 

rather than the state system because ‘‘you’re part of our team and 

she doesn’t want questions asked.’’ Some health care professionals 

offered to falsify paperwork to arrange the abortions.73

Arguably just as important as the three clinics that agreed to 

break the law, there were six clinics that refused to act criminally, 

telling the women that they were unable to provide a sex-selection 

abortion. If the U.K. did not have a sex-selection abortion ban, presumably these clinics would have provided the abortions. Therefore, this investigation demonstrates that sex-selection abortion 

bans can prevent sex-selection abortions. Also, the investigation 

shows that laws in fact are followed by a majority of persons, and 

therefore are effective in deterring the undesired, illegal behavior. 

On learning of the illegal activity, Scotland Yard launched an investigation.74 U.K. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley convened an 

emergency meeting of top officials who reported the offenders to 

the police and to the General Medical Council. Secretary Lansley 

described sex-selection abortion as ‘‘morally repugnant’’ and vowed 

to bring the ‘‘full force of the law,’’ including imprisonment, to bear 

on doctors who violate the law. Dr. Tony Falconer, President of the 

Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology raised the specter that 

women in the U.K. may be experiencing coercion, including violence, to force sex-selection abortions, and that the ‘‘priority should 

be to identify these women and provide them with support.’’ 75 Cynthia Bower, the head of Britain’s Care Quality Commission (the 

National Health Service oversight entity) quickly resigned her job. 

The Chief Medical Officer dispatched written instructions to all 

British abortion clinics reminding them of their ‘‘responsibilities.’’ 

The Department of Health called for an immediate investigation. 

Gillian Lockwood, the former vice chair of the Royal College of 

Obstetricians and Gyneacologists Ethics Committee told BBC 

Radio that, ‘‘Every clinician working in the field in the U.K. is very 

well aware that a foetus being the wrong gender is not grounds for 

termination under any circumstances.’’ She added that new blood 

tests that can determine the sex of the baby at much earlier stages 

of pregnancy (first trimester) ‘‘may fuel the desire for designer babies.’’ 76

THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Last year, the Council of Europe recommended that member 

states, including Britain, stop telling parents the gender of their 

baby because of concerns that this information was encouraging 

sex-selection abortion.77 The motion, entitled ‘‘Sex-Selective Abortion—Gendercide’’ (Doc. 12258) calls for the member states of the 

Council of Europe to ‘‘condemn sex-selective abortion, wherever and 

whenever it occurs’’ and warns that ‘‘the widespread availability of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

78 Id. 79 Almond and Edlund, supra note 13. 80 Council of Europe, Doc. 12258, supra, note 77. 81 Id. 82 Id. 83 Id. 84World Health Organization, Preventing Gender-Biased Sex Selection, an interagency statement of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, United Nations Population Fund 

(UNFPA), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), and World Health Organization (WHO), 

2011, available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501460leng.pdf. 85 H.R. 3541, 112th Cong., 1st session, § 250(a)(2). 86Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 87Puri, supra at 1170. 88 Id. 

prenatal sex-determination technology [is] lead[ing] to a new global 

trend: sex-selective abortion, . . . Among the countries most 

strongly affected by this new trend are China, India, South Korea, 

Taiwan, but also some European countries.’’ 78 Not coincidentally, 

some Americans tracing their lineage to these countries are some 

of the same sub-communities that manifest unnatural sex-ratios in 

the United States.79

Considering possible consequences of this ‘‘gendercide,’’ the document affirms that this ‘‘gender imbalance constitutes a serious 

threat for global security.’’ 80 The selective pre-natal killing of females will in the near future lead to a further radical decline of 

birth rates, which could ‘‘dangerously undermine the sustainability 

of entire national economies.’’ 81

The motion urges that the use of pre-natal diagnostics should be 

strictly limited ‘‘to identify[ing] medical conditions that can be 

treated during pregnancy’’ and not for sex-selective abortions. 

Many European hospitals have stopped giving parents information 

about the sex of an unborn child.82 Unfortunately, blood tests that 

purport to disclose the sex of the baby are widely available on the 

Internet.83

THE UNITED NATIONS

Also recognizing this emerging trend, five United Nations agencies have together issued in June 2011 an interagency statement 

on ‘‘Preventing Gender-Biased Sex-Selection.’’ The statement, based 

on an extensive report, requests ‘‘renewed and concerted efforts 

. . . to address the deeply rooted gender discrimination against 

women and girls which lies at the heart of sex selection.’’ 84

COERCION

H.R. 3541 forbids coercing women to obtain abortions prohibited 

under the Act because sex-selection abortions are oftentimes coerced.85 Coercion is the opposite of ‘‘choice.’’ 86 Evidence shows that 

women around the world—including inside the United States—can 

be subject to severe physical abuse and coercion to force a sex-selection abortion.87

A 2011 study, by the University of California, San Francisco, 

interviewed Indian-American immigrant women in California, New 

York, and New Jersey who had sought sex-selection abortions in 

the United States between 2004 and 2009.88 The purpose of the 

study was to understand how women who are pressured to bear 

sons react in a country where reproductive choice is allowed and 

sex-selection technologies are openly marketed and available. ReVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:18 May 29, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR496.XXX HR496

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

89 Id. 90 Id. 91 Bilal Sarawy, BBC News, Afghan Woman is Killed for Giving Birth to a Girl, (January 30, 

2012)(A 22 year old Afghan woman had her feet bound by her mother-in-law while her husband 

strangled her for giving birth to the couple’s third daughter.) available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ 

news/world-asia-16787534; Times of India, TNN (AP), Pregnant Woman Burnt to Death, (August 

15, 2005)(Nita Koli was set on fire by her husband and mother-in-law for repeatedly bearing 

daughters instead of sons.) available at http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2005-08-19/ 

india/27862684l1lpregnant-woman-morbi-police-female-foetus. 92Walter Estrada, Alexia Foundation, PhotoBlog, MSNBC.com, Oct. 10 2010, available at 

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/lnews/2010/10/01/5214051-undesired-in-india-boys-are-prizedover-girls-with-violent-results. 93Puri, supra note 8, at 1171. 94 Id. 95 Id. at 1172. 96 Id. 97 Id. 98 Id. 

searchers chose two U.S. based clinics offering elective ultrasound 

in large South Asian immigrant communities as research sites, 

with the consent of the clinic directors.89

Because the researchers had reason to fear for the participants’ 

exposure to marital violence, all subjects were offered information 

on local South Asian women’s organizations offering assistance for 

victims of family violence.90 Measures to prevent domestic violence 

in the context of abortion are not standard in the U.S., but for 

women from countries with strong son preference, failure to bear 

a son is a serious matter; the birth of a child of the wrong sex could 

result in a brutal death for the mother at the hands of the father 

and mother-in-law.91 For example, photojournalist Walter 

Astrada’s documentary tells the story of an Indian woman who was 

tortured and abandoned by her husband and mother-in-law for refusing to abort twin girls.92

Nearly half of the participants had already had a sex-selection 

abortion, with some having as many as four sex-selection abortions.93 The women sought varying forms of sex-selection, with 6% 

using PGD, 15% using sperm sorting, and 78% using ultrasound 

and sex-selective abortion.94 The cost of sperm sorting and PGD is 

prohibitive for most couples.95 Also, husbands of the women believed that sperm sorting and PGD are less desirable options for 

sex-selection because they are ‘‘unnatural,’’ whereas conception followed by abortion was ‘‘natural.’’ The participants expressed frustration with American gynecological practice which typically only 

reveals the sex of an unborn child at approximately 20 weeks after 

fertilization. Instead, they preferred ‘‘private clinics’’ where clinic 

staffers will reveal the sex with ultrasound at just 12 weeks gestation.96

Women who carried a female unborn child to term said they were 

subject to varying degrees of verbal and physical abuse. Women 

identified female in-laws and husbands as sources of significant 

pressure to have male children. This was true even if the in-laws 

lived in India.97 Participants told of mothers-in-law who tell them 

they are useless, or who threaten to throw them out of the family 

if the daughter-in-law cannot bear a son. One mother-in-law even 

threatened to commit suicide if the daughter-in-law did not bear a 

son- instigating the wrath of the entire family against the daughter-in-law.98

Husbands threatened divorce or abandonment, both serious consequences for an uneducated woman with no family in the United 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

99 Id. 100 Id. at 1174. 101 Id. 102 Id. 103 Id. at 1173. 104 Id. 105 Jeani Chang, MPH, Cynthia Berg, MD, MPH, Linda Saltzman, PhD, Joy Herndon, MS, 

Homicide: A Leading Cause of Injury Deaths Among Pregnant and Postpartum Women in the 

United States: 1991–1999, Am. J. Public Health, March 2005, at 471–477. 106Watt, supra, note 70. 107See Miller, Jordan, Levenson & Silverman, 2010, Reproductive Coercion; Connecting the 

Dots between Partner Violence and Unintended Pregnancy, Contraception, 81,457–59; Thiel de 

Bocanegra, Rostovtseva D. P., Khera S. & Godhwani, N. 2010. Birth Control Sabotage and 

Forced Sex: Experiences Reported by Women in Domestic Violence Shelters, Violence Against 

Women, 14, 1382–1396. 108Puri, supra note 8, at 1174. 

States.99 Gender inequality between husband and wife manifests 

itself strongly in the immigrant context, because the wife’s poorly 

developed support system can make her more vulnerable to reproductive coercion and physical abuse.100 Also, immigrant women felt 

that having a son is even more important in the new country than 

in the old, since men are thought to be better equipped to navigate 

the complexities of immigrant life. Immigrant women are at greater risk for domestic abuse and violence because of linguistic barriers and a lack of familiarity with American social services.101

When explaining why they sought sex-selection, the women often 

described the suffering of female relatives who had no sons, including social stigma and a lack of economic support, respect, and stability. Also, many of them thought that life is too hard for women 

in general, desiring to prevent a daughter from suffering the way 

that they themselves have suffered. Finally, most were concerned 

that a daughter would have premarital sex if raised in the United 

States, and that this would bring dishonor to the family. These concerns were consistent across all socioeconomic levels, even among 

the 23% that held advanced degrees in medicine, law, nursing and 

scientific research.102

Women who refuse sex-selection abortions are sometimes physically abused. A woman may be denied food, water, and rest to induce an abortion where it is determined that the woman is carrying a female unborn child.103 Some women described being hit, 

pushed, choked and kicked in the abdomen in a husband’s attempt 

to forcibly terminate a female unborn child.104 Pregnancy is already a vulnerable time for women; the most common cause of 

death for pregnant women in the United States is homicide, often 

at the hands of the unborn child’s father.105 Likewise, in the wake 

of an expose on sex-selection abortion in the U.K., Dr. Tony Falconer, President of the Royal College of Obstetrics and 

Gynaecology, raised the specter that women may be experiencing 

violence and coercion to force sex-selection abortions, and that the 

‘‘priority should be to identify these women and provide them with 

support.’’ 106

A growing body of research documents the relationship between 

intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion, sometimes resulting in forced sex and denial of healthcare services if pregnant.107 Sunita Puri, M.D., M.S., a medical resident at the UCSF 

Department of Internal Medicine has noted that, ‘‘health care providers are often well positioned to intervene or suggest options, but 

may be hesitant to approach issues perceived as ’cultural.’’ 108

Puri’s study concluded that pregnancy, abortion, and the use of reVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:18 May 29, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR496.XXX HR496

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

109 Id.; See also Moore, Frohwirth, & Miller, 2010. Male Reproductive Control of Women who 

have Experienced Intimate Partner Violence in the United States, Social Science and Medicine, 

70, 1737–1744. 

110Puri, supra note 8, at 1175. 111 Id. at 1174. 112 Id. 113Puri, supra note 8, at 1173. 114 Id. 115 Id. 116 H.R. 3541, 112th Cong., 1st session, § 250(a)(2)(C). 117 Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create the Master Race, Ch. 5 ‘‘Legitimizing Raceology.’’ p. 63–85 (New York 2004). 118Susan A. Cohen, Abortion and Women of Color: The Bigger Picture, Guttmacher Policy Review, Guttmacher Institute (vol. 11, no. 3, Summer 2008). 119 Id. 120 National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 58, No. 19, May 20, 2010. Table 1. Number of 

Deaths, Death Rates, and Age Adjusted Death Rates by Race and Sex: United States, 1940, 1950, 

1960, 1970, and 1980–2007. 

productive technologies may be a product of an abusive environment created by marital partners, an extended family, or both.109

Further, participants recognized that the ready availability and legality of ultrasound technology in the U.S. increased the pressure 

and even obligation to use it.110

One-third of the women in the study reported a history of family 

violence exacerbated when they did not give birth to a son.111 That 

they are at increased risk for psychological and physical morbidity 

is documented by their descriptions of depression, anxiety, chronic 

pain, physical abuse, closely spaced pregnancies, and ‘‘forced abortions.’’ Sex-selection abortion has long been considered a form of violence against women, and the study proved that both the women 

and the unborn daughter are victims of violence where sex-selection abortion is legally available but not sought by the woman. 112

The study found that 40% of the women had terminated prior 

pregnancies when they learned that the unborn child was female. 

Of the women who discovered they were pregnant with a girl during the interview period, 89% underwent an abortion. Of those that 

did not abort their unborn daughters, 100% expressed ambivalence 

about prior sex-selection abortions.113 Further, 100% cited physical 

and psychological trauma from the past abortions as reasons for 

not seeking another.114 Most tragically, 100% expressed guilt, 

shame and sadness over their inability to ‘‘save’’ the daughters 

they had aborted.115

RACE-SELECTION ABORTION

‘‘Race-selection abortion’’ is defined in the findings of H.R. 3541 

as, ‘‘an abortion performed for purposes of eliminating an unborn 

child because the child or a parent of that child is of an undesired 

race.’’ 116 A thorough review of the American family planning movement and its close affiliation with the American Eugenic Society reveals a history of targeting African-Americans and other minorities 

for ‘‘population control.’’ 117 This history arguably contributes to the 

current statistic that a black baby is five times as likely to be 

aborted as a white baby, and often in a federally subsidized clinic.118

Abortion is the leading cause of death in the black community.119

With approximately 450,000 black abortions per year, more black 

Americans are lost to abortion annually than are lost to cancer, 

heart disease, diabetes, AIDS, and violence combined.120 These statistics are supported by comparing the abortion statistics of the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

121www.guttmacher.org; http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm. 122 Id. 123 Emily Bazelon, The Place of Women on the Court, New York Times Magazine http:// 

www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?lr=2 (July 7, 2009); Melinda 

Hennenberger, Why Emily Bazelon Didn’t Follow Up on Justice Ginsburg’s Abortion Comment, 

Politics Daily, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/17/why-emily-bazelon-didnt-follow-up-onginsburgs-offensive-abort/(July 17, 2009). 124Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/ginsburg.bio.html. 125 Black, supra, note 119, at 19, 127. Black does not list abortion as a eugenic tactic; Abortion 

was largely illegal during the era of American eugenics. 

Alan Guttmacher Institute (formerly the research arm of Planned 

Parenthood) to the National Vital Statistics annual reports showing number of deaths by cause and race.121 The numbers for each 

of these variables have remained relatively constant.122

That American elites may have had ‘‘group targeting’’ in mind for 

family planning programs was indicated by Supreme Court Justice 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a 2009 interview with the New York 

Times: 

Ginsburg: ‘‘Reproductive choice has to be straightened 

out . . . ’’ 

Emily Bazelon (NYT): ‘‘Are you talking about . . . the 

lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?’’ 

Ginsburg: ‘‘Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. 

[Harris v. McRae—in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde 

Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have 

too many of. So that Roe was going to then be set up for 

Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt 

would risk coercing women into having abortions when 

they really didn’t want them. But when the court decided 

McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been wrong altogether.’’ 123

Justice Ginsburg never defined the ‘‘we’’ who did not want ‘‘too 

many’’ of certain ‘‘populations,’’ her comments suggest she was including herself in the group. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a leader in 

the women’s movement during the 1960’s and 1970’s, serving as 

the founder and counsel of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project 

from 1972–1980, the time during which Roe v. Wade became 

law.124

MARGARET SANGER’S EUGENIC LEGACY CONTINUES THROUGH TODAY’S

FEDERALLY FUNDED PLANNED PARENTHOOD

The trailblazer of the American family planning movement was 

Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist whose ideology permeated the family planning movement of the 20th century. Many eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and 

‘‘purity,’’ particularly of the ‘‘Aryan’’ race. They hoped to purify the 

bloodlines and improve the human race by encouraging the ‘‘fit’’ to 

reproduce and encouraging the ‘‘unfit’’ to restrict their reproduction. Their tactics to contain the ‘‘inferior’’ races included segregation, sterilization, laws restricting interracial marriage, birth control, and even extermination.125


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

126 Robert G. Marshall and Charles A. Donovan, Blessed are the Barren: The Social Policy of 

Planned Parenthood p. 24–25 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991). (The BCFA members voted 

unanimously at a special January 29, 1942, meeting to change the organization’s name to the 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America. By then, BCFA had 34 state league affiliates. The 

state leagues followed suit in changing their name and bylaws. Particularly, the New York State 

Federation for Planned Parenthood’s old bylaws stipulated that the object was: ‘‘To develop and 

organize on sound eugenic, social and medical principles, interest in and knowledge of birth control throughout the State of New York as permitted by law [emphasis added].’’ The new bylaws 

replaced the words ‘‘birth control’’ with ‘‘planned parenthood.’’ ‘‘Eugenics’’ was dropped in 1943 

because of its unpopular association with the German government’s race-improving eugenics 

theories which culminated in the Holocaust). 127 Angela Franks, Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility 10–12. 

(Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2005). 128 Id. at 104–107. 129Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, at 108 (New York: Brentano’s, 1922) (emphasis 

added). 130See http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/politics-policy-issues/ppfa-margaret-sanger-award-winners-4840.htm. 

The fruit of Sanger’s labor was the American Birth Control 

League (ABCL), later known as the Birth Control Federation of 

America (BCFA), later renamed ‘‘Planned Parenthood Federation of 

America.’’ 126

Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned 

Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. 

Virtually all of the organization’s board members were eugenicists.127 Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening 

of birth control clinics to the publishing of literature that addressed 

population control. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of family planning 

services. The International Planned Parenthood Federation was 

originally housed in the offices of the American Eugenics Society. 

The two organizations remained intertwined for years.128

Sanger’s early writings express her desire to rid society of 

‘‘human waste’’: 

It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking 

and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with 

it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of 

human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of 

the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.129

The Sanger legacy manifests itself today in the practices of 

Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. Planned Parenthood has not run from Sanger’s eugenic legacy. In fact, several of 

the Planned Parenthood facilities, such as in New York City and 

Tucson, are named the ‘‘Margaret Sanger Center.’’ Also, each year, 

Planned Parenthood bestows the ‘‘Margaret Sanger Award.’’ The official Planned Parenthood web site describes this award: ‘‘Our 

highest honor, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger Award, is presented annually to recognize leadership, 

excellence, and outstanding contributions to the reproductive 

health and rights movement.’’ Past recipients include former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who voted to legalize abortion nationwide in Roe v. Wade, and Secretary of State Hillary 

Clinton.130

The ‘‘Margaret Sanger Award’’ is not to be confused with Planned 

Parenthood’s ‘‘Maggie Award’’—also named for Margaret Sanger— 

that is given annually to media outlets that raises the abortion inVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:18 May 29, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR496.XXX HR496

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

131See http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/politics-policy-issues/ppfamaggie-awards-10047.htm. 132See U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSR), 

Births: Final Data for 2006, Vol. 57, No. 7, January 7, 2009; and Births: Preliminary Data for 

2007, Vol. 57, No. 12, March 18, 2009; and earlier reports; Volume 58, Number 4 October 14, 

2009 Estimated Pregnancy Rates for the United States, 1990–2005: An Update by Stephanie 

J. Ventura, M.A.; Joyce C. Abma, Ph.D.; William D. Mosher, Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics; 

Stanley K. Henshaw, Ph.D., The Guttmacher Institute; Trends in the Characteristics of Women 

Obtaining Abortions, 1974 to 2004, See also ‘‘Abortion Rate Among Black Woman Far Exceeds 

Other Groups,’’ FOX NEWS, (April 9, 2008), available at http://www.foxnews.com/story/ 

0,2933,348649,00.html. (The percentage of black unborn children aborted can be derived by comparing the number of black births in the National Vital Statistics to the number of black abortions reported by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (‘‘AGI’’), widely considered to be the authority 

in abortion statistical information. One should use caution, however, when examining abortion 

statistics because abortion reporting is incomplete. Some states fail to report at all. Therefore, 

all statistics showing abortion numbers represent minimum estimates or floors, not accurate 

counts. AGI functioned as the research arm of the federally funded Planned Parenthood for 

many years before becoming a separate entity in recent years). 133See http://www.ru486.com. (RU–486 is the generic name of mifepristone in the U.S., and 

is sometimes referred to as ‘‘the abortion pill,’’ non-surgical abortion, or ‘‘medical abortion.’’ Nonsurgical abortions using RU486 are performed in the first 63 days of the first trimester. Nonsurgical abortion is usually in pill form (Mifepristone or RU486), but can also be administered 

by injection or in liquid form (methotrexate)). http://www.Mifepristone.com. 134 H.B. 2443 (Az. 2011). 135 H.B. 1595 (Okla. 2009). 136S.B. 529/H.B. 1155 (Ga. 2010). 

dustry’s profile. Planned Parenthood’s web site reads: ‘‘The Planned 

Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Maggie Awards recognize exceptional contributions . . . that enhance the public’s understanding of . . . abortion, and international family planning. 

Named after Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, the 

annual awards cover categories: Commentary, Daily Print Reporting. . . .’’ 131

The eugenic legacy of Planned Parenthood has led many Americans, particularly those in the black community, to question, why 

a large number of abortion clinics are located in the inner city, 

with nearly 50% of black pregnancies ending in abortion, often at 

government subsidized health clinics.132 Significantly, the number 

of black abortions is likely significantly underreported, simply because there exists no comprehensive abortion data clearinghouse 

that gathers complete abortion statistics from all 50 states. Those 

states that do report often fail to include the race of the child or 

mother, and rarely tally the increasingly common RU–486 abortions.133 Nonetheless, the Federal Government continues to give 

hundreds of millions annually to abortion providers through Title 

X, in addition to potentially hundreds of millions more through 

Title XX. 

PUBLIC SUPPORT 

STATE LEVEL PRENDA INITIATIVES

PRENDA statutes have progressed with broad support at the 

state level. Arizona passed a bill nearly identical to H.R. 3541 

through both houses of the state legislature by 2/3 margins, and 

Gov. Brewer signed the bill into law in 2011.134 In 2009, Oklahoma 

passed a sex-selection ban through the Oklahoma House by a 90% 

margin. Gov. Henry signed the bill into law, but it was later overturned by the Oklahoma Supreme Court on technical grounds that 

it violated a state mandated one subject rule.135 Georgia passed a 

bill nearly identical to PRENDA through the state Senate by 2/3 

margin and through three House committees with sizeable margins 

in 2010.136 In 2012, Florida introduced a nearly identical bill in 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

137 H.B. 1327/S.B. 1702 (Fl. 2012). 138 Id. 139 H.B. 693 (Id. 2010). 140Sara Rubin, The New Push for Abortion Restrictions, The Atlantic, (March 18, 2010)http:// 

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/the-new-push-for-abortion-restrictions/37656/ 141Press Release, Zogby International, Support for Abortion in Sharp Decline, Jan. 23, 2006, 

available at http://zogby.com/news/2006/01/23/support-for-abortion-in-sharp-decline/; ‘‘New Zogby 

International Poll: Americans Increasingly Favor Pro-Life Positions,’’ LifeNews.com, March 27, 

2006, available at http://www.lifenews.com/nat2164.html. 142See http://liveaction.org/planned-parenthood-racism-project. (This addition of this provision 

was prompted by a 2008 LiveAction expose showing that several federally funded Planned Parenthood clinics agreed to accept donations earmarked for the termination of black babies only. 

The donors made clear that their intent was to reduce the births in the black population at 

large. Under H.R. 3541, the acceptance of these donations would be a crime.) 

both the Florida House and Senate.137 The bill passed two House 

subcommittees by a substantial margin.138 Idaho introduced a 

similar bill in 2010.139 In total, seven states have introduced either 

a bill nearly identical to PRENDA or a stand-alone sex-selection 

ban.140

POLLING

The American people want H.R. 3541. According to a 2006 Zogby 

poll, 86% thought that sex-selection abortion should be illegal. Four 

percent were unsure, and only 10% believed that sex-selection 

abortion should be legal.141

SUPPORTERS OF H.R. 3541

H.R. 3541 is supported by the Alliance Defense Fund, the Susan 

B. Anthony List, the National Right to Life, the National Black 

Pro-Life Union, The LEARN action network (a network of thousands of black pastors), Dr. Alveda King, niece of the Reverend Dr. 

Martin Luther King, Jr., the Population Research Institute, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, the American Center for Law and 

Justice, the Concerned Women for America, the Family Research 

Council, Focus on the Family, Liberty Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Filipino Family Fund, the Southern Baptist Conference, Anglicans for Life, Students for Life, and many other organizations. 

BILL ANALYSIS 

MECHANICS OF H.R. 3541

H.R. 3541 is a criminal law containing four prohibitions: 

1. Proscribes the performance of an abortion with knowledge 

that the abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color 

or race of the child, or the race of a parent of the child. 

These abortions are defined in the bill as ‘‘sex-selection 

abortions’’ or ‘‘race-selection abortions.’’ Both terms are defined in the bill as elective procedures predicated upon sex 

or race discrimination. 

2. Prohibits coercion of either a sex-selection or race-selection 

abortion. 

3. Prohibits solicitation or acceptance of funds for the performance of a sex-selection or race-selection abortion.142

4. Prohibits the transport of a woman into the United States 

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


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

143The penalties of title 18 attach; fines may reach $250,000.00 for individual offenders, 

$500,000.00 for corporations, and damages may be doubled where the offense results in loss of 

life. 144 42 U.S.C. § 2000d—2000d-7 (2009). Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 3000e (1964). Title 

VI, provides that ‘‘No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national 

origin. . . . be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.’’ President John F. Kennedy summarized the purpose of this provision: ‘‘Simple 

justice requires that public funds . . . not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, 

subsidizes or results in racial discrimination.’’ 145 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2 (1972); The Attorney General may also intervene: 42 U.S.C. § 2000h2 (1972): the Attorney General may intervene in lawsuits in Federal court ‘‘seeking relief from 

denial of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution on 

account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin’’ in cases of general public importance. Title 

IX. 146 H.R. 3541, the ‘‘Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act 

(PRENDA) of 2011 before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Judiciary Committee, 

112th Cong. (Dec. 6, 2011) 2011 (Testimony of Steve Aden, Senior Counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund); Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 439 (1968); J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. 

T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 131 (1994). 147Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1939). 148 Id. 

H.R. 3541 amends title 18 of the U.S. Code.143 H.R. 3541 also 

provides that a violation of the Act is deemed to be a violation of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964.144 Therefore, penalties of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 attach, such as the loss of Federal funding for 

offenders. The Attorney General may prosecute or seek injunctive 

relief.145 Finally, a private right of action lies for family members 

or for a woman who is coerced to submit to a sex-selection or raceselection abortion. H.R. 3541 provides damages to reflect the loss 

of a human life, resembling wrongful death damages. 

CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

H.R. 3541 presents novel issues for review: (1) whether an unborn child can enjoy any degree of protection from discrimination 

as a matter of equal protection under United States law; (2) whether the prohibition of only those abortions sought on the basis of sex 

or race constitute an ‘‘undue burden’’ on a woman’s right to choose 

an abortion. 

Because H.R. 3541 presents issues of first impression, one cannot 

be certain of the outcome in court, but H.R. 3541 can be upheld as 

constitutional under judicial precedents. Congress has the authority to pass H.R. 3541 under the power to regulate interstate commerce, the power granted under section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment to ‘‘eradicate all badges of slavery,’’ and the power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate all barriers to 

gender equality based on ‘‘invidious, archaic and overbroad stereotypes.’’ 146

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

The Supreme Court finds the right to an abortion as deriving 

from an implied right to privacy, via a liberty interest inherent in 

the Fourteenth Amendment, as a matter of substantive due process; this right builds on a precedential ‘‘penumbra,’’ formed by an 

emanation from an earlier guarantee to unrestrained access to 

birth control, established in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut.147

As Justice Douglas wrote, ‘‘specific guarantees . . . have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give 

them life and substance.’’ 148 Building on the Griswold-derived penumbra, Roe v. Wade established a fundamental right for a woman 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

149Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 150Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). 151 Id. 152Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 157 (2007). 153 Id. 154 Civil Rights Act of 1866, § 14 Stat. 27 (1866). 155 Id. 156 U.S. CONST. amend. XIII, § 1. 157 U.S. CONST. amend. XIII, § 2. 158Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 441 (1968). 

to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term.149 Planned Parenthood v. Casey further held that abortion restrictions are permissible but must not create an ‘‘undue burden’’ on a woman’s right 

to abortion.150 Even so, the Casey Court affirmed the principle that 

‘‘the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy 

in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus . . . 

.’’ 151

No precedent has addressed the question of whether the liberty 

interest to make reproductive decisions is superior or inferior to the 

government’s compelling interest in eradicating race and sex discrimination. 

In 2007, Gonzales v. Carhart upheld the Federal Partial Birth 

Abortion Ban Act to serve the government interests of protecting 

the reputation of the medical community, preserving the integrity 

and ethics of the medical profession, and promoting societal respect 

for unborn life.152 In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Gonzales, successful arguments could be made to uphold H.R. 

3541’s prohibition of both discriminatory abortions and coerced 

abortions, and the failure of medical professionals to report the 

commission of either.153 H.R. 3541 addresses each of the interests 

identified in Gonzales by prohibiting medical professionals from 

performing procedures that Americans find discriminatory, barbaric, unethical, and even anathema to a woman’s right to make 

reproductive decisions (in the case of coercion). 

THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

In 1866 Congress enacted the first Civil Rights Act.154 This Act 

provided that: ‘‘[All citizens of the United States] of every race and 

color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude . . . shall have the same right . . . to make and 

enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, 

purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, 

and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white 

citizens . . .’’ 155

Congress found the power to enact the Civil Rights Act against 

infringements by the states through the Thirteenth Amendment, 

which prohibits ‘‘slavery [or] involuntary servitude, except as a 

punishment for crime. . . .’’ 156 and which gives Congress the 

‘‘power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’ 157 As understood by Congress, the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery 

and the opposite of slavery is liberty. Therefore any unwarranted 

restrictions on liberty that are race based, may be considered ‘‘incidents’’ of slavery,158 and section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment 

empowers Congress to protect citizens from unjust restrictions on 

liberty. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

159Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 628 (1986); Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 625 (1984); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc., v. United States, 

379 U.S. 241 (1964). 160 Casey, 505 U.S. at 846. 161Testimony of Steve Aden, supra. 162See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (affirming that the 

Title VII 

rubric ‘‘because of sex’’ is a workable standard that may be applied in a variety of contexts). 

163See U.S.C.A. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3; Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§ 201–207, 201(a), (b)(1), 

(c)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000a to 2000a-6, 2000a(a), (b)(1), (c)(1); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. 

United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964); Jones v. Alfred 

H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 88 S. Ct. 2186, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1189 (1968). 

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the elimination of 

private race or sex discrimination is a sufficient government interest to justify regulation, even when contrasted against competing 

rights.159 While one may have a right to engage in an activity, this 

does not equate to the right to engage in the activity in a discriminatory manner. 

The Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence does not require a 

different result. The Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of 

Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey recognized the essential holding of the Court in Roe v. Wade—that women possess the right to 

obtain an abortion without undue interference from the State before viability. That holding, Casey clarified, was based on the 

Court’s perception that the State’s interests were not strong 

enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a 

substantial obstacle to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure at that stage.160 The Supreme Court has made clear, however, that the government has a compelling interest in eliminating 

discrimination against women and minorities, and this compelling 

interest could prove sufficient to hold that such an abortion restriction is constitutional. 

The findings of H.R. 3541 explicitly define sex-selection and raceselection abortions as elective procedures predicated on sex or race 

discrimination. With this finding, the bill makes clear that the target of the legislation is discrimination. 

The balance of H.R. 3541’s operative provisions are likewise wellgrounded in Fourteenth Amendment and Commerce Clause jurisprudence. The term ‘‘based on [sex or race]’’ used by H.R. 3541 is 

similar to the term ‘‘on the grounds of’’ employed by Title VI, 42 

U.S.C. § 2000d, which is incorporated by reference in H.R. 3541.161

Both of these terms are functionally identical to the judicially developed term employed by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 

‘‘because of . . . [inter alia] [race or sex].’’ The Act clarifies that the 

mother may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable under the Act, 

and thus the private right of action provisions strike only at the 

commercial activity of providing abortion, which clearly substantially impacts interstate commerce.162

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

Insofar as H.R. 3541 targets persons who commit, finance or coerce a sex or race-selection abortion, Congress has broad powers 

under the Commerce Clause to enact this legislation in furtherance 

of the rights of equality secured by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth 

Amendments.163 As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. 

Lopez, ‘‘[W]e have upheld a wide variety of congressional acts regulating intrastate economic activity where we have concluded that 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

164 United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1994). 165See, www.guttmacher.org, Alan Guttmacher Institute. 166 Alan Guttmacher Institute, Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States, August 2011; 

Jones R. K., et al., Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2008, 40(1):6–16. 167 Jones R. K., et al., Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005, 

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2008, 40(1):6–16. 168 Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee, 

109th Congress, 1st Session, on H.R. 748, March 3, 2005, Serial No. 109–3. 169 Alan Guttmacher Institute, Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States, August 2011, 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fblinducedlabortion.html .(Only twelve percent of abortions 

in the United States are late-term, defined as occurring at 13 weeks or later). 170 Jones R. K. et al., Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005, 

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2008,40(1):6–16. 171 Id. 

the activity substantially affected interstate commerce.’’ 164 The 

economic activity regulated by H.R. 3541, abortion services, is demonstrably interstate and international in scope, and therefore 

well within the scope of Congress’ power under the Commerce 

Clause. 

Abortion impacts interstate commerce. Abortion is an interstate, 

international, multi-billion dollar business. There are, on average, 

greater than 1.2 million abortions performed in the U.S. each 

year.165 This number represents a floor, not a ceiling, in that abortion reporting is not required, and many states do only scant or 

partial reporting of abortion data. At an average cost of $418 for 

a first trimester abortion, and $1,800-$3,000 for a late-term abortion, one can calculate that abortion revenues are approaching one 

billion annually.166

Women travel across state lines to an abortion provider, either 

because there are no abortion providers nearer to home, or to avoid 

various state regulations of abortion. Eighty-seven percent of all 

U.S. counties lacked an abortion provider in 2008, and thirty-five 

percent of the female population lives in those counties.167 Mississippi, for example, has gone from eight abortion providers to one 

part-time abortionist, making abortionists in the border cities of 

neighboring states more convenient choices. South Dakota has been 

at times completely without a state based abortion provider, so that 

a single abortionist intermittently enters the state, providing the 

only surgical abortion services available. Further, as established in 

the hearings on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act 

(CIANA), minors are sometimes transported across state lines for 

abortions to avoid parental consent laws.168

Sex-selection abortions are typically late-term abortions, making 

interstate travel necessary for many American women who would 

seek one since late-term abortions are performed by few abortion 

providers.169 Often there is no late-term abortion provider within 

a state. The sex of a baby is typically revealed by a gynecologist 

at twenty weeks gestation. Only 20% of abortion clinics offer abortion after 20 weeks.170 Only 8% of all abortion providers offer abortions after 24 weeks.171

Hearings 

The Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on H.R. 3541 on Tuesday, December 6, 2011. The Subcommittee heard testimony from four witnesses: Steve Aden, Senior 

Legal Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund; Steve Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute; Edwin Black, historian 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

and investigative journalist; and Miriam Yeung, Executive Director 

of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum 

(NAPAWF). 

Committee Consideration 

On February 16, 2012, the Committee met in open session and 

ordered the bill H.R. 3541, as amended, to be reported favorably to 

the House by a vote of 20–13, a quorum being present. 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

3541. 

1. An amendment by Mr. Franks to make technical amendments 

to the bill, including the addition of ‘‘(H.R. 3541)’’ to the title, and 

a clarification that a cause of action for a post-abortive woman who 

is subject to an illegal abortion under the law may bring suit 

against an offender of any prohibition. Agreed to by a vote of 12 

to 10. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................... X 

Mr. Coble ............................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................

Mr. Lungren ......................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ...........................................................

Mr. Issa ................................................................ X 

Mr. Pence .............................................................

Mr. Forbes ............................................................ X 

Mr. King ...............................................................

Mr. Franks ............................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert .........................................................

Mr. Jordan ............................................................

Mr. Poe .................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin ............................................................

Mr. Marino ........................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ............................................................

Mr. Ross ............................................................... X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................... X 

Mr. Quayle ............................................................

Mr. Amodei ...........................................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member ...................... X 

Mr. Berman ..........................................................

Mr. Nadler ............................................................ X 

Mr. Scott .............................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................... X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ...................................................


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Waters ...........................................................

Mr. Cohen ............................................................

Mr. Johnson .......................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ......................................................... X 

Mr. Quigley ........................................................... X 

Ms. Chu ............................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́ nchez .........................................................

Mr. Polis ...............................................................

Total ................................................... 12 10 

2. An amendment by Mr. Conyers to strike portions of the short 

title of the bill. Agreed to by a vote of 24 to 1. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................... X 

Mr. Coble ............................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly ..........................................................

Mr. Goodlatte ....................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ......................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ................................................................

Mr. Pence .............................................................

Mr. Forbes ............................................................

Mr. King ............................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ............................................................ X 

Mr. Gohmert .........................................................

Mr. Jordan ............................................................ X 

Mr. Poe .................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin ............................................................ X 

Mr. Marino ........................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ............................................................ X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................... X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................... X 

Mr. Quayle ............................................................ X 

Mr. Amodei ...........................................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member ......................

Mr. Berman ..........................................................

Mr. Nadler ............................................................ X 

Mr. Scott .............................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................... X 

Ms. Lofgren ..........................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................... X 

Ms. Waters ...........................................................

Mr. Cohen ............................................................


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

ROLLCALL NO. 2—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Johnson .......................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ......................................................... X 

Mr. Quigley ........................................................... X 

Ms. Chu ...............................................................

Mr. Deutch ........................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ......................................................... X 

Mr. Polis ...............................................................

Total ................................................... 24 1 

3. An amendment by Mr. Quiqley to delay the effective date of 

the bill. Defeated by a vote of 9 to 16. 

ROLLCALL NO. 3 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ............................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ........................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ............................................................................

Mr. Chabot ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Issa .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Pence ...............................................................................

Mr. Forbes ..............................................................................

Mr. King .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Gohmert ...........................................................................

Mr. Jordan ..............................................................................

Mr. Poe ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...........................................................................

Mr. Griffin ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Gowdy ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ................................................................................. X 

Ms. Adams ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Quayle .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Amodei .............................................................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .........................................

Mr. Berman ............................................................................

Mr. Nadler .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Scott ................................................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ................................................................................. X 

Ms. Lofgren ............................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee .....................................................................


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

ROLLCALL NO. 3—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Waters .............................................................................

Mr. Cohen ...............................................................................

Mr. Johnson, Jr. ...................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ............................................................................

Mr. Quigley ............................................................................. X 

Ms. Chu .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch .............................................................................. X 

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Polis ................................................................................. X 

Total ..................................................................... 9 16 

4. An amendment by Ms. Chu to add a section to the bill creating an Office of Pregnant Women. Defeated by a vote of 9 to 18. 

ROLLCALL NO. 4 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ............................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ........................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ............................................................................

Mr. Chabot ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Issa .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Pence ...............................................................................

Mr. Forbes ..............................................................................

Mr. King .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Gohmert ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Poe ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...........................................................................

Mr. Griffin ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Gowdy ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ................................................................................. X 

Ms. Adams ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Quayle .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Amodei .............................................................................

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .........................................

Mr. Berman ............................................................................

Mr. Nadler .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Scott ................................................................................. X 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

ROLLCALL NO. 4—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Watt ................................................................................. X 

Ms. Lofgren ............................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee .....................................................................

Ms. Waters .............................................................................

Mr. Cohen ...............................................................................

Mr. Johnson, Jr. ...................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Quigley ............................................................................. X 

Ms. Chu .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ..............................................................................

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Polis ................................................................................. X 

Total ..................................................................... 9 18 

5. An amendment by Ms. Chu to insert findings regarding various statements made by agencies of the United Nations. Defeated 

by a vote of 9 to 18. 

ROLLCALL NO. 5 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ............................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ........................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ............................................................................

Mr. Chabot ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Issa ..................................................................................

Mr. Pence ...............................................................................

Mr. Forbes .............................................................................. X 

Mr. King .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Gohmert ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Poe ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...........................................................................

Mr. Griffin ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Gowdy ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ................................................................................. X 

Ms. Adams ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Quayle .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Amodei .............................................................................


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

ROLLCALL NO. 5—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .........................................

Mr. Berman ............................................................................

Mr. Nadler .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Scott ................................................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ................................................................................. X 

Ms. Lofgren ............................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee .....................................................................

Ms. Waters .............................................................................

Mr. Cohen ...............................................................................

Mr. Johnson, Jr. ...................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Quigley ............................................................................. X 

Ms. Chu .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ..............................................................................

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Polis ................................................................................. X 

Total ..................................................................... 9 18 

6. An amendment by Mr. Nadler to replace portions of the bill 

with a provision prohibiting coercing a woman to have an abortion. 

Defeated by a vote of 10 to 18. 

ROLLCALL NO. 6 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ............................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ........................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ............................................................................

Mr. Chabot ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Issa ..................................................................................

Mr. Pence ...............................................................................

Mr. Forbes .............................................................................. X 

Mr. King .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Gohmert ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Poe ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...........................................................................

Mr. Griffin ...............................................................................

Mr. Marino .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Gowdy ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ................................................................................. X 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

ROLLCALL NO. 6—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Adams ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Quayle .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Amodei ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .........................................

Mr. Berman ............................................................................

Mr. Nadler .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Scott ................................................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ................................................................................. X 

Ms. Lofgren ............................................................................ X 

Ms. Jackson Lee .....................................................................

Ms. Waters .............................................................................

Mr. Cohen ...............................................................................

Mr. Johnson, Jr. ...................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Quigley ............................................................................. X 

Ms. Chu .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ..............................................................................

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Polis ................................................................................. X 

Total ..................................................................... 10 18 

7. An amendment by Mr. Nadler to add a provision regarding a 

study of discriminatory employment practices toward pregnant 

women. Defeated by a vote of 12 to 19. 

ROLLCALL NO. 7 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ............................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ........................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ............................................................................

Mr. Chabot ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Issa ..................................................................................

Mr. Pence ...............................................................................

Mr. Forbes .............................................................................. X 

Mr. King .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Gohmert ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Poe ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...........................................................................


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

ROLLCALL NO. 7—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Griffin ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Gowdy ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ................................................................................. X 

Ms. Adams ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Quayle .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Amodei ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .........................................

Mr. Berman ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Nadler .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Scott ................................................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ................................................................................. X 

Ms. Lofgren ............................................................................ X 

Ms. Jackson Lee .....................................................................

Ms. Waters ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Cohen ...............................................................................

Mr. Johnson, Jr. ...................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Quigley ............................................................................. X 

Ms. Chu .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ..............................................................................

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Polis ................................................................................. X 

Total ..................................................................... 12 19 

8. A motion to report the bill, as amended, favorably to the 

House. Adopted by a vote of 20 to 13. 

ROLLCALL NO. 8 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ............................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ........................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ............................................................................

Mr. Chabot ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Issa .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Pence ...............................................................................

Mr. Forbes .............................................................................. X 

Mr. King .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Franks .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Gohmert ........................................................................... X 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

ROLLCALL NO. 8—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Jordan .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Poe ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...........................................................................

Mr. Griffin ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Gowdy ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ................................................................................. X 

Ms. Adams ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Quayle .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Amodei ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member ......................................... X 

Mr. Berman ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Nadler .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Scott ................................................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ................................................................................. X 

Ms. Lofgren ............................................................................ X 

Ms. Jackson Lee .....................................................................

Ms. Waters ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Cohen ...............................................................................

Mr. Johnson, Jr. ...................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ............................................................................ X 

Mr. Quigley ............................................................................. X 

Ms. Chu .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ..............................................................................

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Polis ................................................................................. X 

Total ..................................................................... 20 13 

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 

Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 

expenditures. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

the bill, H.R. 4965, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, March 19, 2012. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, CHAIRMAN, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3541, the ‘‘Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 

2011.’’ 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz, who 

can be reached at 226-2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 3541—Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass 

Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011. 

As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on 

February 16, 2012. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3541 would have no significant cost to the Federal Government. Enacting the bill could affect direct spending and revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any effects would be insignificant for each year. 

H.R. 3541 would make it a Federal crime to perform certain 

abortions. Because the legislation would establish a new offense, 

the government would be able to pursue cases that it otherwise 

would not be able to prosecute. We expect that H.R. 3541 would 

apply to a relatively small number of offenders, so any increase in 

costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations 

would not be significant. Any such costs would be subject to the 

availability of appropriated funds. 

Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 3541 could 

be subject to criminal fines, the Federal Government might collect 

additional fines if the legislation is enacted. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and later 

spent. CBO expects that any additional revenues and direct spending would not be significant because of the small number of cases 

likely to be affected. 

CBO has not reviewed H.R. 3541 for intergovernmental or private-sector mandates. Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act excludes from the application of that act any legislative provision that establishes statutory rights prohibiting discrimination on 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

172 18 U.S.C. § 3559. (Because the first four prohibitions of H.R. 3541 carry sentences of less 

than 5 years but more than 1 year, these crimes are Class E felonies). 18 U.S.C. § 3571. (The 

maximum statutory fine for individuals committing a Class E felony is $250,000, while the statutory maximum fine for organizations is $500,000—per count). 18 U.S.C. § 3559. (A violation of 

the reporting requirement carries a sentence of 6 months to 1 year, making this crime a Class 

A misdemeanor. A Class A misdemeanor carries a $100,000 maximum statutory penalty if the 

violation does not result in death, and a $250,000 maximum statutory penalty where the violation does result in death; courts could arguably interpret a violation of the reporting requirethe basis of sex or race. Because the bill would give some individuals the right to take legal actions to prevent certain abortions, 

CBO has determined that the bill falls within that exclusion. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. The 

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

Performance Goals and Objectives 

The Committee states that clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives is inapplicable inasmuch as the 

measure does not authorize funding. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 3541 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI. 

Section–by–Section Analysis 

Section 1. Short Title 

This section states that the short title of this bill is the ‘‘Prenatal 

Nondiscrimination Act of 2012.’’ 

Section 2. Findings and Constitutional Authority 

Section 2 contains factual findings and the constitutional authority for the Act. 

Section 3. Discrimination Against the Unborn on the Basis of Race 

or Sex 

Section 3 amends Title 18 of the United States Code by adding 

a new section 250 at the end of Chapter 13: 

Sec. 250—Discrimination Against the Unborn on the basis of race 

or sex 

Prohibitions. Subsection (a) contains the criminal prohibitions 

of the bill: Subsection (a)(1) prohibits anyone from performing an 

abortion knowing that the abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child; 

Subsection (a)(2) prohibits the use force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion; Subsection (a)(3) prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of funds for the performance of 

a sex-selection abortion or a race-selection abortion; and Subsection 

(a)(4) prohibits the transportation of a woman into the United 

States or across a State line for the purpose of obtaining a sex-selection abortion or race-selection abortion. A violation or attempted 

violation of subsections (a)(1–4) shall result in a fine under title 

Title 18,172 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

ment either way, depending upon the circumstances, such as whether an actual violation occurred, resulting in the death of the unborn child. Sentencing Commission fines levied for similar crimes are not available to inform sentencing recommendations for H.R. 3541 because the 

bill amends the civil rights section of the criminal code, where there is no perfectly comparable 

crime for comparison). 173See, e.g. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(b) (2005) (‘‘In any action 

[for discrimination in public accommodations] the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs. . . .’’); Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (2005) (‘‘In any action for denial of equal employment opportunities] the 

court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee a part 

of the costs. . . .’’); Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) (2005) (‘‘On 

a claim in which an individual proves a violation under section 703(m) [42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m)] 

and a respondent demonstrates that the respondent would have taken the same action in the 

absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the court—(i) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief (except as provided in clause (ii)), and attorney’s fees and costs demonstrated to 

be directly attributable only to the pursuit of the claim under section 703(m). . . .’’); Civil 

Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (2005) (‘‘In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1977, 1977A, 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981 of the revised 

statutes, title IX of Public Law 92–318, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, or section 40302 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, the court, in its discretion, 

may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee . . . 

.’’); Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(b) (2005) (‘‘In any action commenced under this section, the court may allow the prevailing party, other than the United 

States, a reasonable attorney’s fee against the United States as part of the costs.’’); 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997c(d) (2005) (‘‘In any action in which the United States joins as an intervener under this 

section, the court may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable 

attorney’s fee against the United States as part of the costs. . . .’’). 174See e.g. Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(f) (2005) (allowing the court to award costs including reasonable attorney’s fees); Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d) (2005) (‘‘The court, in 

issuing a final order in any action [for violation of the Clean Water Act], may award costs of 

litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any prevailing or substantially prevailing party, whenever the court determines such award is appropriate.’’). 175See Civil Rights Attorney’s Fee Award Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94–559, 90 Stat. 2641 

(1976); Equal Access to Justice Act, Pub. L. No 96–481, 94 Stat. 2321 (1980). 

Civil Remedies. Subsection (b) provides the civil remedies 

available under the bill: Subsection (b)(1) provides a civil action for 

a woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted 

in violation of subsection (a)(2); Subsection (b)(2) provides a civil 

action for the father of an unborn child who is the subject of an 

abortion performed or attempted in violation of subsection (a), or 

a maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the pregnant woman 

is an unemancipated minor, unless the pregnancy resulted from 

the plaintiff’s criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the 

abortion. 

Damages. Subsection (b)(3) defines ‘‘appropriate relief’’ in a civil 

action under subsection (b): Subsection (b)(3)(A) provides for ‘‘objectively verifiable’’ money damages for all injuries, psychological and 

physical, including loss of companionship and support, occasioned 

by the violation of section 250; Subsection (b)(3)(B) provides for punitive damages; Subsection (b)(4)(A) provides injunctive relief to a 

‘‘qualified plaintiff’’ in a civil action to prevent an abortion provider 

from performing or attempting further abortions in violation of section 250. 

‘‘Qualified Plaintiff.’’ Subsection (b)(4)(B) defines ‘qualified 

plaintiff’ as: (i) a woman upon whom a sex-selection or race-selection abortion is performed or attempted; (ii) the spouse of such 

woman; or (iii) the Attorney General. 

Attorney’s Fees. Subsection (b)(5) awards attorney’s fees to prevailing plaintiffs. The award of reasonable attorneys’ fees for successful plaintiffs follows standard Federal policy. Nearly all major 

civil rights 173 and environmental statutes 174 include one-way feeshifting provisions. Other Federal statutes have brought entire additional areas of litigation under the one-way fee-shifting rule.175


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

176 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. 177See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Title VI Legal Manual 20 (2001). 178 Id. 179Pub. L. No. 100–259 (1988). 180 42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a(2006). See also 28 C.F.R. 42.102(f) (defining ‘‘recipient of financial assistance’’). 181 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, supra note 128, at 10; see also 28 C.F.R. 42.102(c) (Title VI covers 

entities that receive grants and loans of Federal funds). 182 1 U.S.C. §§ 437d and 438 (regarding Federal campaign financing laws); 6 U.S.C. § 488f (regarding homeland security); and 46 U.S.C. §§ 3507 and 70107 (regarding ship passenger safety 

and port security). (Five other Federal statutes that require the reporting of information to ‘‘appropriate law enforcement authorities.’’). 

Federal Funding. Subsection (c) provides for a loss of Federal 

funding for those persons or entities found guilty of violating subsection (a). Further, a violation of subsection (a) shall be deemed 

for the purposes of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be 

discrimination prohibited by section 601 of that Act.176 Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is titled ‘‘Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs,’’ and section 601 provides that, ‘‘No person 

in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national 

origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, 

or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.’’ 

****Federal Financial Assistance and Coverage Under 

Title VI: 

Title VI does not apply to the Federal Government.177 It does, 

however, apply to state, local, or municipal agencies, and also to 

private entities.178 In 1988, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987,179 to broadly define covered ‘‘programs and activities’’ under Title VI. Under that Act, the term ‘‘program or activity’’ means all of the operations of: 

(1)(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or 

(B) the entity of such State or local government that distributes 

such assistance and each such department or agency (and each 

other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is 

extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government 

. . . 

(3)(A) an entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship——— 

(i) if assistance is extended to such corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship as a whole; or 

(ii) which is principally engaged in the business of providing education, health care, housing, social services, or parks and recreation 

. . . any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.180

As the Department of Justice’s Title VI Legal Manual states: 

‘‘[t]he clearest example of Federal financial assistance is the award 

or grant of money.’’ 181

Reporting Requirement. Subsection (d) provides that a physician, physician’s assistant, nurse, counselor, or other medical or 

mental health professional shall report known or suspected violations of any of this section to appropriate law enforcement authorities. Whoever violates this requirement shall be fined under title 

18 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.182

Expedited Consideration. Subsection (e) provides that it shall 

be the duty of the United States district courts, United States 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

183 2 U.S.C. § 437h (relating to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law); 2 U.S.C. § 922 (relating to emergency powers to restrain budget deficits); 5 U.S.C. § 5312 (relating to executive 

schedule pay rates); 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (relating to immigration removal orders); 13 U.S.C. § 141 

(relating to census litigation); 31 U.S.C. § 301 (relating to the Department of the Treasury); and 

42 U.S.C. § 6305 (relating to energy efficiency standards). (Federal statutes contain provisions 

requiring courts to hear certain types of cases in an expedited manner). 

courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court of the United States to 

expedite review of cases brought under the law.183

Exception. Subsection (f) provides that a woman who has a sexselection or race-selection abortion may not be prosecuted or held 

civilly liable for any violation of the law. 

‘‘Abortion’’ defined. Subsection (g) defines abortion as ‘‘the act 

of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any 

other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the 

clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that 

the termination by those means will with reasonable likelihood 

cause the death of the unborn child, unless the act is done with the 

intent to: (1) Save the life or preserve the health of the unborn 

child; (2) Remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion; or (3) Remove an ectopic pregnancy.’’ 

Severability. Section 4 provides that if any portion of the bill— 

on its face or as applied to any person or circumstance—is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remainder of the bill. 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—CRIMES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS 

Sec. 

241. Conspiracy against rights. 

* * * * * * * 

250. Discrimination against the unborn on the basis of race or sex. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 250. Discrimination against the unborn on the basis of race 

or sex 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever knowingly— 

(1) performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is 

sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or 

the race of a parent of that child; 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

(2) uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure 

or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion; 

(3) solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a sex-selection abortion or a race-selection abortion; or 

(4) transports a woman into the United States or across a 

State line for the purpose of obtaining a sex-selection abortion 

or race-selection abortion; 

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 

not more than 5 years, or both. 

(b) CIVIL REMEDIES.— 

(1) CIVIL ACTION BY WOMAN ON WHOM ABORTION IS PERFORMED.—A woman upon whom an abortion has been performed pursuant to a violation of subsection (a)(2) may in a 

civil action against any person who engaged in a violation of 

subsection (a) obtain appropriate relief. 

(2) CIVIL ACTION BY RELATIVES.—The father of an unborn 

child who is the subject of an abortion performed or attempted 

in violation of subsection (a), or a maternal grandparent of the 

unborn child if the pregnant woman is an unemancipated 

minor, may in a civil action against any person who engaged 

in the violation, obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy 

resulted from the plaintiff’s criminal conduct or the plaintiff 

consented to the abortion. 

(3) APPROPRIATE RELIEF.—Appropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes— 

(A) objectively verifiable money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, including loss of companionship and support, occasioned by the violation of this section; and 

(B) punitive damages. 

(4) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—A qualified plaintiff may in a civil 

action obtain injunctive relief to prevent an abortion provider from performing or attempting further abortions in 

violation of this section. 

(B) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph the term ‘‘qualified 

plaintiff’’ means— 

(i) a woman upon whom an abortion is performed 

or attempted in violation of this section; 

(ii) any person who is the spouse or parent of a 

woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of this section; or 

(iii) the Attorney General. 

(5) ATTORNEYS FEES FOR PLAINTIFF.—The court shall 

award a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection. 

(c) LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDING.—A violation of subsection (a) 

shall be deemed for the purposes of title VI of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 to be discrimination prohibited by section 601 of that Act. 

(d) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—A physician, physician’s assistant, nurse, counselor, or other medical or mental health professional 

shall report known or suspected violations of any of this section to 

appropriate law enforcement authorities. Whoever violates this reVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:18 May 29, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR496.XXX HR496

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

quirement shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 

than 1 year, or both. 

(e) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION.—It shall be the duty of the 

United States district courts, United States courts of appeal, and 

the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket 

and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any 

matter brought under this section. 

(f) EXCEPTION.—A woman upon whom a sex-selection or raceselection abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly 

liable for any violation of this section, or for a conspiracy to violate 

this section. 

(g) PROTECTION OF PRIVACY IN COURT PROCEEDINGS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Except to the extent the Constitution or 

other similarly compelling reason requires, in every civil or 

criminal action under this section, the court shall make such 

orders as are necessary to protect the anonymity of any woman 

upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted if she 

does not give her written consent to such disclosure. Such orders may be made upon motion, but shall be made sua sponte 

if not otherwise sought by a party. 

(2) ORDERS TO PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND COUNSEL.—The 

court shall issue appropriate orders under paragraph (1) to the 

parties, witnesses, and counsel and shall direct the sealing of 

the record and exclusion of individuals from courtrooms or 

hearing rooms to the extent necessary to safeguard her identity 

from public disclosure. Each such order shall be accompanied 

by specific written findings explaining why the anonymity of the 

woman must be preserved from public disclosure, why the order 

is essential to that end, how the order is narrowly tailored to 

serve that interest, and why no reasonable less restrictive alternative exists. 

(3) PSEUDONYM REQUIRED.—In the absence of written consent of the woman upon whom an abortion has been performed 

or attempted, any party, other than a public official, who brings 

an action under this section shall do so under a pseudonym. 

(4) LIMITATION.—This subsection shall not be construed to 

conceal the identity of the plaintiff or of witnesses from the defendant or from attorneys for the defendant. 

(h) DEFINITION.—The term ‘‘abortion’’ means the act of using or 

prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, 

device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically 

diagnosable pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the termination by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the 

death of the unborn child, unless the act is done with the intent to— 

(1) save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child; 

(2) remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous 

abortion; or 

(3) remove an ectopic pregnancy. 

* * * * * * * 

Dissenting Views 

H.R. 3541, the ‘‘Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 

2012,’’ as amended, is yet another assault by the Majority on women’s reproductive rights. It undoes the constitutional guarantee of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
46 

1 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 

2Letter from Wade Henderson, President & CEO, & Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, to Members of the Subcomm. on the 

Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Dec. 5, 2011) (on file with H. Comm. on the 

Judiciary, Democratic staff). 3The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) 

of 2011: Hearing on H.R. 3541 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on 

the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 184 (2011) (statement for the record submitted by Nancy Keenan, 

President, NARAL Pro-Choice Am.) [hereinafter H.R. 3541 Hearing]. 4Written statement from Laura W. Murphy, Dir., Washington Legislative Office, Vania 

Leveille, Senior Legislative Counsel, & Sarah Lipton-Lubet, Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union, to the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Dec. 6, 

2012) (on file with H. Committee on the Judiciary, Democratic staff). 5 H.R. 3541 Hearing, at 198 (statement for the record submitted by the Center for Reproductive Rights). 6 Id. at 179 (statement for the record submitted by Sujatha Jesudason, Executive Dir., Generations Ahead). 7 Id. at 191 (statement for the record submitted by Debra Ness, President, & Andrea D. Friedman, Director of Reproductive Health Programs, National Partnership for Women & Families). 8 Id. at 189 (statement for the record submitted by Douglas W. Laube, Board Chair, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health). 9Written Testimony from the Reproductive Justice Community, to H. Comm. on the Judiciary 

Subcomm. on the Constitution (Dec. 6, 2011) (on file with House Comm. on the Judiciary, Democratic staff) [on behalf of: ACCESS Women’s Health Justice, Act for Women & Girls, Alliance 

for Human Biotechnology, Am. Medical Student Ass’n, Asian Cmtys. for Reprod. Justice (ACRJ), 

Cal. Latinas for Reprod. Justice, Cal. Black Women’s Health Project, Ctr. for Genetics & Society, 

Ctr. For Reprod. Rights (CRR), Civil Liberties & Pub. Policy, Feminists for Changes (E. Ky. 

Univ.), Generations Ahead, Jahajee Sisters, Laws Students for Reprod. Justice (LSRJ), Nat’l 

Asian Pacific Am. Women’s Forum (NAPAWF), Nat’l Network for Abortion Funds, Nat’l Latina 

Institute for Reprod. Health (NLIRH), Our Bodies Ourselves (OBOS), Physicians for Reprod. 

Choice, Religious Coal. for Reprod. Choice, Reprod. Health Technologies Project (RHTP), SPARK 

Reprod. Justice NOW, Trust Black Women, & Young Women United]. 10Written statement from the National Abortion Federation on H.R. 3541 (Dec. 6, 2012) (on 

file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Democratic staff). 11 H.R. 3541 Hearing, at 196 (letter submitted for the record submitted from Asian & Pacific 

Islander American Health Forum, Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice, Asian Pacific 

American Labor Alliance, Asian Pacific Partners for Empowerment, Advocacy and Leadership, 

Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations, Hmong National Development, 

Jahajee Sisters, Manavi, National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse, 

National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance, OCA, Sakhi for South Asian Women, and South Asian Americans Leading Together, to 

a woman’s right to choose that has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court for nearly 40 years since its historic holding in Roe 

v. Wade.1 The bill would make abortions—at any point before or 

after viability—a crime under certain circumstances. And, it would 

provide an opportunity for endless and costly litigation because it 

would force a doctor, a court, and a jury to effectively attempt to 

read a woman’s mind to determine what her thinking was when 

she chose to have an abortion. As a result, H.R. 3541 would have 

a profound impact on the practice of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship. It would turn medical personnel into ‘‘thought 

police’’ because they would be required to examine a woman’s motives for choosing to have an abortion in order to limit the health 

care providers’ own civil and criminal liability. Should this deeply 

flawed legislation become law, physicians would be risking such liability if they choose to inform a pregnant woman of the sex of her 

fetus or to discuss her options. Accordingly, numerous organizations deeply committed to protecting the rights of women and communities of color are staunchly opposed to this legislation, including The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,2

NARAL Pro-Choice America,3 American Civil Liberties Union,4 the 

Center for Reproductive Rights,5 Generations Ahead,6 National 

Partnership for Women & Families,7 Physicians for Reproductive 

Choice and Health,8 the Reproductive Justice Community,9 the National Abortion Federation,10 and a coalition of 14 Asian American 

and Pacific Islander community organizations.11


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 

Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman, and Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member, Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Dec. 6, 2011)). 12 H.R. 3541, § 2(a)(1)(D) provides: ‘‘By definition, sex-selection abortions do not implicate the 

health of the mother of the unborn, but instead are elective procedures motivated by sex or gender bias.’’ See also § 2(a)(2)(C) ‘‘By definition, race-selection abortions do not implicate the health 

of mother of the unborn, but are instead are elective procedures motivated by race bias.’’ 13 ‘‘With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ 

point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus 

has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life 

after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is 

necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’’ Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 163–64 

(1973) (emphasis added). 14 H.R. 3541, § 2(a)(3)(B). 15Section 1 of the 14th Amendment also provides for birthright citizenship for all persons 

born in the United States regardless of the immigration status of their parents. U.S. Const., 

Amend. 14, § 1. 

For these reasons, and those discussed below, we respectfully dissent and we urge our colleagues to reject this seriously flawed bill. 

DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

H.R. 3541, as amended, would impose criminal and civil liability 

on any person who: (1) performs certain abortions at any time during pregnancy if the purpose of such abortion is to terminate a 

pregnancy on the basis of the fetus’ race or sex; (2) uses force (or 

threat of force) to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for 

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

(3) solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a sex-selection 

abortion or a race-selection abortion, or (4) transports a woman 

into the United States or to another state for the purpose of obtaining a sex-selection abortion or race-selection abortion. In addition, 

the legislation imposes criminal liability on medical personnel who 

suspect there may have been violation of this measure, but fail to 

report such suspicion to law enforcement officials. Further, it terminates Federal funding for health care providers who violate this 

measure. 

Section 1. Short Title. Section 1 sets forth the short title of the 

bill as the ‘‘Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012.’’ 

Section 2. Findings and Statement of Constitutional Authority. 

Section 2 sets forth a series of findings that assert sex or race selection abortions are a form of discrimination on the basis of sex 

and race.12 It appears to be intended to lay the groundwork for a 

direct challenge to the Supreme Court’s holding in Roe v. Wade, 

which overruled pre-viability abortion prohibitions.13 For example, 

one finding states that ‘‘Congress has a compelling interest in acting—indeed it must act—to prohibit sex-selection abortion and 

race-selection abortion.’’ 14 Section 2 cites as the constitutional authority for this measure the Commerce Clause, and the enforcement clauses of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution (eliminating involuntary servitude), and the 14th Amendment (prohibiting states from ‘‘mak[ing] or enforc[ing] any law which shall 

abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United 

States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or 

property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within 

its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’’ 15

Section 3. Discrimination Against the Unborn on the Basis of 

Race or Sex. Section 3 amends title 18 of the United States Code 

to make certain sex- and race-selection abortions a violation of the 

title’s criminal civil rights provisions by adding a new section 250 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
48 

16 H.R. 2299, 112th Cong. (2011). 17 Id. at § 2. 

to chapter 13 of such title. All further references to these new provisions are to proposed section 250. 

It is important to note that the bill fails to distinguish between 

sex selection abortions that are for the purpose of preferring one 

gender over another and an abortion to avoid the risk of bearing 

a child with a sex-linked defect, or for any other purpose. Both 

would be criminalized under the proposed legislation. 

Criminal Penalties. Section 250(a) creates four new civil rights 

crimes, each of which is punishable by a fine, or imprisonment for 

up to 5 years, or both, for any person who: 

(1) ‘‘performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought 

based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of 

a parent of that child’’; 

(2) ‘‘uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or 

race-selection abortion’’; 

(3) ‘‘solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a sex-selection abortion or a race-selection abortion’’; or 

(4) ‘‘transports a woman into the United States or across a State 

line for the purpose of obtaining a sex-selection abortion or raceselection abortion.’’ 

The fourth item incorporates the same highly controversial provision included in the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, 

which would make it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a 

minor across a state line, with the intent that she obtain an abortion, in circumvention of a state’s parental consent or parental notification law.16 The penalty for a violation of the law would be a fine 

or imprisonment for up to 1 year or both.17

Civil Cause of Action. Section 250(b)(3) allows a civil action to be 

brought both for ‘‘objectively verifiable money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, including loss of companionship 

and support, occasioned by the violation of this section; and punitive damages.’’ And, section 250(b)(4) authorizes injunctive relief. 

Section 250(b)(1) authorizes a woman upon whom an abortion 

has been performed or attempted by someone who ‘‘uses force or 

the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person 

for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion’’ to bring an action against that person. 

An action may also be brought by the ‘‘father of an unborn child’’ 

or ‘‘a grandparent of the unborn child if the pregnant woman is a 

minor’’ against a person who violates the bill’s criminal prohibitions, ‘‘unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff’s criminal 

conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion’’ pursuant to section 250(b)(1) and (2). While the role of family members in these 

situations is usually limited to coercion short of the use of force or 

the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person 

for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion, this section would allow a birth father or parent of the woman 

to sue and obtain money damages, for example, against a doctor, 

even if the former did engage in coercive activity short of the criminal prohibition, or if such conduct was engaged in by close family 

members. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
49 

18Section 601 states, ‘‘No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or 

national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000d (2012). 19 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1 (2012). 20Shaila Dewan, To Court Blacks, Foes of Abortion Make Racial Case, The New York Times 

(Feb. 26, 2010) (available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/us/27race.html) (Last visited 

May 29, 2012). 21 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 154 (1973). 22 No Taxpayer funding for Abortion Act: Hearing on H.R. 3 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011); Markup of H.R. 3, the ‘‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,’’ by the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011); The 

State of Religious Liberty in the United States: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011); The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick 

Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011: Hearing on H.R. 3541 Before the Subcomm. 

on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011); Markup of H.R. 3541, 

the ‘‘Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011’’ by the 

H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong, (2012); Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act: 

Hearing on H.R. 2299 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2012); Markup of H.R. 2299, the ‘‘Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act,’’ 

112th Cong. (2012); The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act: HearContinued 

Section 250(b)(4) authorizes an action seeking injunctive relief to 

be brought by ‘‘a woman upon whom an abortion is performed or 

attempted in violation of this section’’ or any person who is a 

spouse or a parent of a woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of this section, or the Attorney General of the 

United States. In addition, section 250(c) provides for the awarding 

of attorney’s fees and costs, but only for a prevailing plaintiff. 

Loss of Federal funding. H.R. 3541 treats a violation of its prohibitions as a per se violation of section 601 of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964, which deals only with discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, or national origin, but not gender, in any program or activity 

receiving Federal financial assistance.18 This provision of the bill, 

in turn, would trigger section 602 of the Act, which terminates 

funding for any program violating section 601.19 The effect of this 

amendment would be that organizations, such as Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates, could be targeted. In 

recent years, these organizations have been falsely accused of accepting donations earmarked to abort African American fetuses. 

These allegations arise from a series of highly-edited ‘‘sting’’ videos 

made by Live Action, a discredited organization devoted to attacking progressive organizations through deceptive ‘‘undercover’’ operations.20

Section 4. Severability. Section 4 of the bill provides that if any 

portion of the legislation is invalidated, its remaining provisions 

must be given full effect. 

CONCERNS WITH H.R. 3541

I. H.R. 3541 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The Constitution has recognized that a woman’s ‘‘right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision.’’ 21 While opponents of 

this fundamental constitutional right have long sought to overturn 

or undermine that right, it remains the law of the land four decades later. The Majority has devoted a great deal of time and energy to undermining thus fundamental right in this Congress. In 

this Congress alone, the Judiciary Committee has met 11 times to 

consider matters undermining women’s constitutionally protected 

right to control their won bodies.22 This legislation is simply the 

latest salvo in the Majority’s war on women. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
50 

ing on H.R. 3803 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 

112th Cong. (2012). 23 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 24 Id. at 410 U.S. at 163–64 (emphasis added). 25 H.R. 3541, § 2(a)(3)(B). 

A. H.R. 3541 Prohibits Abortions Prior to Viability. 

By imposing a criminal penalty for certain abortions at any point 

in a pregnancy, the bill crosses a bright line set out by the Supreme Court. It would allow, for the first time since Roe, the government to inquire into a woman’s motivations for having an abortion, and her deliberations with her health care provider. 

In its landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme 

Court struck down pre-viability abortion prohibitions.23 The Court 

explained: 

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest 

in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This 

is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability 

of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both 

logical and biological justification. If the State is interested 

in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go as far as 

to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is 

necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.24

Although the authors of H.R. 3541 attempt to circumvent the 

Court’s bright line rule by stating ‘‘Congress has a compelling interest in acting—indeed it must act—to prohibit sex-selection abortion and race-selection abortion,’’ 25 the fact remains that this legislation proposes a radical change in existing constitutional law. A 

simple assertion in a legislative finding, however, cannot wipe 

away decades of critical constitutional protections. 

In fact, some proponents of this legislation have publicly admitted that it is intended to undermine, and ultimately overturn, the 

Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. For example, Steven 

Mosher, who testified at the Constitution Subcommittee hearing on 

this legislation, has written: 

I propose that we—the pro-life movement—adopt as our 

next goal the banning of sex- and race-selective abortion. 

By formally protecting all female fetuses from abortion on 

ground of their sex, we would plant in the law the proposition that the developing child is a being whose claims on 

us should not depend on their sex. 

Of course, this suggestion is not original with me. It was 

originally made by the redoubtable Hadley Arkes, who 

wrote in the pages of First Things in 1994 that ‘‘we seek 

simply to preserve the life of the child who survives the 

abortion. From that modest beginning, we might go on to 

restrict abortions after the point of ‘‘viability,’’ or we could 

ban those abortions ordered up simply because the child 

happens to be a female. We could move in this way, in a 

train of moderate steps, each one commanding a consensus 

in the public, and each one tending, intelligibly, to the ultiVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:18 May 29, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR496.XXX HR496

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
51 

26Steven W. Mosher, A New Front in the Abortion Wars: PreNDA Seeks Race and Sex-based 

Equality for the Unborn, 18 PRI Review (Nov./Dec. 2008) available at http://www.pop.org/content/a-new-front-in-abortion-wars-prenda-seeks-1602 (last visited Dec. 5, 2011). 27 H.R 3541, § 4 (creating a new 18 U.S.C. 250(g)(1)). 28 H.R. 3541 does provide exceptions to ‘‘remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous 

abortion’’ and to ‘‘remove an ectopic pregnancy’’). Id. (creating a new 18 U.S.C. 250(g)(2) & (3)). 29Roe at 164. 30Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973). 31 505 U.S. 833, 879 (1992) (quoting Roe v. Wade) (citations omitted). 

mate end, which is to protect the child from its earliest 

moments.26

It is clear that H.R. 3541 is nothing more than a reckless attempt 

to override fundamental constitutional protections that have been 

the law of the United States for nearly four decades. 

B. H.R. 3541 Fails To Include the Constitutionally Required Exception To Protect the Health of the Woman 

Although H.R 3541 includes an exception to ‘‘save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child,’’ 27 it fails to include the constitutionally required exception to protect the life and health of the 

woman.28 The Supreme Court in Roe was unequivocal: ‘‘A . . . 

criminal abortion statute . . . that excepts from criminality only a 

life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to 

pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment.’’ 29 In a companion case, the Court clarified that 

‘‘health’’ includes both physical and emotional health. It observed: 

[T]he medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all 

factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the 

woman’s age-relevant to the well-being of the patient. All 

these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical 

judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not 

the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.30

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey the 

Court reaffirmed this rule, explaining that any prohibition must 

make an exception for where an abortion ‘‘is necessary, in appropriate medical judgement, for the preservation of the life or health’’ 

of the woman.31

By failing to include the women’s health exception, H.R. 3541 

violates long established constitutional protections and jeopardizes 

the lives of women. 

II. SUPPORTERS OF H.R. 3541 WRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THE

LEGISLATION FURTHERS THE STRUGGLE AGAINST RACISM AND SEXISM

We find it especially disturbing that the title of the bill, as introduced, invokes the names of Susan B. Anthony and Frederick 

Douglass in support of the argument that eliminating a woman’s 

right to choose furthers the legacy of those great civil rights leaders. In fact, despite the heated rhetoric, there is no historical basis 

for asserting that these civil rights giants would have supported 

the legislation. The repeated assertions that a woman’s right to 

choose is an attack on communities of color and on women, is likewise false. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

32 Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.R. 3541 by the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 34 

(Feb. 8, 2012) (comments of Representative Trent Franks) [hereinafter Markup Transcript]. 33 Id. at 53. 34 Id. at 18. 35 Representative Steven King (R–IA) cast the sole no vote. Id. at 39. 36Markup Transcript at 19 (comments of Representative John Conyers, Jr.). 

A. H.R. 3541 Relies on the Unfounded Canard that Legalized Abortion Is Both Sexist and Racist 

We strenuously oppose the invocation of Susan B. Anthony and 

Frederick Douglass in support of this anti-woman, unconstitutional 

legislation. Indeed, the author of this bill went so far as to claim 

that this legislation was needed because legalized abortion ‘‘far outpaces the death caused even in the days of slavery.’’ 32 Representative Ted Deutch (D–FL) expressed our concerns in his response: 

[I]t must be said that to compare the number of abortions 

to the number of slaves who were killed is to equate 

women exercising their constitutional rights to the slave 

masters and those who killed the slaves. That is not acceptable.33

Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D–MI) observed, ‘‘as one 

who has perhaps studied and appreciated Frederick Douglass as 

much as anyone on the committee, I have not been able to discover 

what his name on this bill and his connection to it are.’’ 34 Accordingly, to rectify this egregious flaw in the bill, he offered an amendment to strip the names of Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony from the bill’s short title. After extensive debate on this issue 

and a break in the markup, the amendment was adopted on a vote 

of 24 to 1.35

Proponents of the legislation rely on statistics that communities 

of color have higher rates of abortion than the general population. 

These statistics do not demonstrate that legalized abortion is a 

form of racism, but rather that to the extent that these communities have been historically underserved in the types of services 

that prevent unwanted pregnancies. The fault lies not with the 

availability of abortion services, but rather with the distorted policies that make that option far more necessary. As Ranking Member 

Conyers explained: 

The African-American and Hispanic communities are underserved when it comes to prenatal care and maternal 

and child health care services. African-Americans have 

shorter life spans, higher infant mortality rates, higher 

rates of low birth weight babies. By every measure our 

community is medically underserved, and the outcomes 

only reinforce that. And so, those are the issues I would 

like to direct our attention toward, and I think that in 

some ways the measure before us signifies an important 

retreat from civil rights initiatives.36

The facts are indeed sobering. African American women are already three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy related 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 

37 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women’s Health, Pregnancy Related Death (May 18, 2010), available at http://www.womenshealth.gov/minority-health/africanamericans/pregnancy.cfm. 38 5 Guttmacher Institute, Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States (Aug. 2011), available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fblinducedlabortion.html. 39L.E.A.R.N. Northeast (part of the Life Education And Resource Network), PLANNED PARENTHOOD, available at http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html (last visited May 27, 2012). 40 Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Family Planning—A Special and Urgent Concern: Speech Accepting the Margaret Sanger Award (1966) available at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ 

about-us/who-we-are/reverend-martin-luther-king-jr-4728.htm. 

causes than White women,37 and their unintended pregnancy rate 

is 67% compared to 40% for White women.38

Some anti-choice advocates have taken the position that Planned 

Parenthood and other providers are inherently racist. For example, 

one of these organizations asserts the following: 

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in 

America. Seventy-eight percent of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being 

targeted? Isn’t that genocide? We are the only minority in 

America that is on the decline in population. If the current 

trend continues, by 2038 the Black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created 

the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing Black 

women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? 

The founder of Planned Parenthood said, ‘‘Colored people 

are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.’’ Is her 

vision being fulfilled today? 39

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., however, took a different view of this 

issue. He strongly supported the work of Ms. Sanger and emphasized the importance of access to family planning resources for African Americans. On accepting the Margaret Sanger Award from 

Planned Parenthood in 1966, Dr. King stated: 

There is a striking kinship between our movement and 

Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all 

of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was 

a direct actionist—a nonviolent resister. She was willing to 

accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went 

into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for 

this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She 

launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to 

preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret 

Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in 

order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage 

and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by 

nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute 

without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and 

people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and 

urgent concern.40


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

41Press Release, Congresswoman Barbara Lee Responds to Billboards that Attack a Woman’s 

Right to Choose (June 17, 2011) (emphasis added), available at http://lee.house.gov/press-releases/congresswoman-barbara-lee-responds-to-billboards-that-attack-a-womans-right-to-choose/. 42Letter from Wade Henderson, President & CEO, & Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, to Members of the Subcomm. on the 

Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Dec. 5, 2011) (on file with H. Comm. on the 

Judiciary, Democratic staff). 43 H.R. 3541, § 2(a)(1)(H). 44Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights et al., Preventing Gender-Biased Sex 

Selection: An Interagency Statement, World Health Organization, at 7 (2011). 

In response to a billboard campaign in her district linking family 

planning with racism, Representative Barbara Lee (D–CA) observed: 

I am deeply offended by the race-based billboards that are 

being displayed in my congressional district by the Radiance Foundation and Issues4Life. . . . These billboards 

stigmatize women of color and perpetuate myths about 

parenting skills and the types of women who seek and use 

abortion services. I have and will continue to believe that 

women have the fundamental rights to make decisions regarding their reproductive lives, and no woman’s choice 

should be subjected to scrutiny based on her ethnic background. 41

It is therefore not surprising that every leading civil rights organization rejects any assertion that this legislation furthers the cause 

of civil rights. In a letter to the Members of the Committee, the 

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of 

more than 200 civil rights organizations, stated: 

Women and their families continue to bear the negative 

consequences of persistent sex and race discrimination. 

Yet, despite its lofty title, HR. 3541 does nothing to address the causes or pernicious effects of such discrimination . . . we must oppose H.R. 3541, which does nothing 

to address ongoing discrimination.42

We strongly concur with these civil rights leaders and likewise 

reject the sponsors’ absurd assumption that legalized abortion is 

racist. 

III. H.R. 3541 DOES NOTHING TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF SON

PREFERENCE AND THE PRESSURES WOMEN SOMETIMES EXPERIENCE

TO PREFER A SON

The preference for male children is a real if limited phenomenon 

in the United States. Some women face familial and community 

preference to have male children, and that pressure can increase 

with each subsequent birth. 

While H.R. 3541 cites the United Nations Commission on the 

Status of Women as urging governments to prevent sex selective 

abortions,43 it ignores the concerns expressed by others in the 

international community—such as the United Nations Population 

Fund, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for 

Human Rights, the United Nations Children’s Fund, United Nations Women, and the World Health Organization—that abortion 

restrictions are not the solution because they put women’s health 

and lives in jeopardy and violate women’s human and reproductive 

rights.44


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

45Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011: Hearing 

on H.R. 3541 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th 

Cong. 68 (2011) (testimony of Miriam Yeung) (citations omitted). 46Pub.L.No. 103–322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994). 

The Minority witness who testified at the hearing on H.R. 3541, 

Miriam Yeung, of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s 

Forum (NAPAWF), discussed how Congress could address male 

child preference issue in a manner that is effective and that supports women rather than stigmatizing them. She explained: 

As an organization that represents Asian American and 

Pacific Islander women, NAPAWF is extremely concerned 

that the anti-choice movement is exploiting the issue of 

son preference in some Asian cultures while doing nothing 

to support efforts that truly address the issue. It is true 

that a few studies point to the practice of son preference 

among Chinese-, Indian-, and Korean-American families 

with more than one child, with results most pronounced 

for families with two or more children. Researchers are 

quick to note that this problem is far from widespread. Because of the low fertility rate in the United States, and because those API ethnicities make up less than two percent 

of the total US population, this phenomenon would in no 

way result in the skewed sex ratios that cause concern in 

Asia. 

Son preference is a symptom of deeply rooted social biases and stereotypes about gender. Gender inequity cannot 

be solved by banning abortion. The real solution is to 

change the values that create the preference for sons. 

Asian American and Pacific Islander women’s organizations know this and are working on this problem in culturally competent ways that provide long-term, sustainable 

solutions. We are working with members of our own community to empower women and girls, thereby challenging 

norms and transforming values. For example, we are carrying out programs that build the leadership capacity of 

women, improve their economic standing, create better access to healthcare for them, and lower the rates of genderbased violence against them. Instead of supporting us in 

this work, proponents of this bill ignore what Asian American and Pacific Islander women know is best for our own 

community and undermine our agency by trying to curb 

our rights.45

In an effort to address these concerns in a constructive and constitutionally sound manner Democratic Members offered a series of 

amendments, all of which were rejected by the Majority. For example, Representative Mike Quigley (D–IL) offered an amendment in 

response to concerns voiced by the sponsors of this bill that women 

were the targets of violence in an effort to force them to abort female fetuses. His amendment would have delayed the bill’s effective date until the Violence Against Women Act 46 was fully funded 

at the authorized level for two consecutive fiscal years. The amendment failed by a vote of 9 to 16. 

Representative Jerrold Nadler (D–NY) offered an amendment 

that would have made it a crime to coerce a woman either to have 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

47 Roe, 410 U.S. at 166. 48Letter from Robert W. Rebar, Executive Director, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, to Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman, Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the 

Judiciary (Dec. 20, 2011) (on file with the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Democratic staff). 

or not to have an abortion under any circumstances. This amendment was rejected by a vote of 10 to 18. Representative Nadler also 

offered an amendment that would have authorized a study into discriminatory practices against pregnant workers. That amendment 

was rejected by a vote of 12 to 19. 

IV. H.R. 3541 VIOLATES THE DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP AND

ADVERSELY IMPACTS THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE

H.R. 3541, by introducing civil and criminal penalties, will make 

it more difficult, and in some cases impossible, for health care providers to exercise the professional obligations to their patients and 

to the practice of medicine. 

The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, recognized the critical role 

of the doctor-patient relationship and why medical judgments 

should be unfettered by governmental intrusion. It explained: 

[T]he right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the 

points where important state interests provide compelling 

justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, 

a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest 

with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the 

privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual 

remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.47

H.R. 3541, on the other hand, would force health care providers 

to inquire into a woman’s reasons for seeking abortion services. 

Physicians would have to consider whether women seeking routine 

non-abortion services, such as determining the sex of the fetus, 

would then use that information in deciding whether to continue 

a pregnancy. 

The bill’s findings purport to suggest the legislation has the support of the medical profession. On the contrary, H.R. 3541 distorts 

the views of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine so flagrantly, that the organization sent a letter to the bill’s author, Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Franks, asking him to correct 

the record. The Society wrote: 

[t]he bill would make illegal the use of elective pregnancy 

termination in certain circumstances. Our report however 

is limited to a specific family building treatment modality, 

and does not address pregnancy termination. We feel it is 

inappropriate to use the conclusions about sex selection 

during a family building process in the context of a discussion about pregnancy termination. We would ask you to 

correct this misrepresentation of our report in the bill.48

Despite this request, Representative Franks declined to correct the 

findings included in the bill. 

The bill’s findings section also selectively quotes an ethics opinion by the American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists. In 

fact, it omits the sentence of the opinion, which states that such 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 

49 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Ethics, Opinion No. 360 

(Feb. 2007, reaff’d. 2008). 50 Id. 51Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization 

and Amendments Act of 2006, Pub.L.No. 109–246, 120 Stat. 577 (2006). 52Pub.L.No. 103–322, 108 Stat 1796 (1994). 53Pub. L. No. 111–2, 123 Stat. 5 (2009). 

abortions are, under certain circumstances, ‘‘ethically permissible.’’ 49 Nor does the bill quote the part of the opinion that states: 

Medical techniques intended for other purposes have the 

potential for being used by patients for sex selection without the health care provider’s knowledge or consent. Because a patient is entitled to obtain personal medical information, including information about the sex of her fetus, 

it will sometimes be impossible for health care professionals to avoid unwitting participation in sex selection.50

Given the severe civil and criminal penalties doctors face under 

this bill, that observation should give everyone—including the 

sponsors of this bill—pause. Doctors would be forced to police their 

patients, read their patients’ minds, and conceal information from 

their patients. The failure to fulfill any of these requirements 

would put such medical professionals at risk of prosecution and 

suit. 

To address this shortcoming in the bill, Representative Sheila 

Jackson Lee (D–TX) offered an amendment reaffirming the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 5.059, 

which states: 

Physicians must seek to protect patient privacy in all of its 

forms, including (1) physical, which focuses on individuals 

and their personal spaces, (2) informational, which involves specific personal data, (3) decisional, which focuses 

on personal choices, and (4) associational, which refers to 

family or other intimate relations. Such respect for patient 

privacy is a fundamental expression of patient autonomy 

and is a prerequisite to building the trust that is at the 

core of the patient-physician relationship. 

This amendment, however, failed. By rejecting this amendment, 

the Members who support this legislation also reject the fundamental ethical duty that physicians owe to their patients—and 

which would be nullified by this legislation. 

CONCLUSION

Rather than addressing the very real problems women face, H.R. 

3541 would destroy the doctor-patient relationship by requiring 

health care providers to police their patients. This legislation represents another assault on the autonomy of American women and 

the protections they have under the Constitution. It is worth noting 

that, despite wrapping this legislation in the language of the civil 

rights movement, many of the bill’s leading proponents have opposed the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act,51 have worked 

to undermine key protections for women such as the Violence 

Against Women Act,52 and opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 

Act of 2009.53 Perhaps most importantly, H.R. 3541 could provide 

a legal basis for overturning Roe v. Wade and nearly four decades 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
58 

of its progeny that have recognized the right of all women to control their own reproductive decisions. 

It is especially disturbing that this bill (as originally introduced) 

sought to invoke two of our Nation’s greatest civil rights leaders 

and the causes for which they heroically struggled as justification 

for the need of this legislation, when, in fact, H.R. 3541 would undo 

constitutional protections for the rights of women. This legislation 

is an insult to the memory of these civil rights leaders and their 

accomplishments, and to those who have struggled, and at times 

died, in the cause of liberty and equality. 

Even under its amended title, H.R. 3541 remains an insult to 

American women. The bill utterly fails to do anything to assist 

women in need and does not include a single provision that would 

promote their health or safety. Instead, it is a paternalistic measure that asserts that the supporters of H.R. 3541 are in a better 

position than health care professionals to make life and death decisions for women. 

For these reasons, we must respectfully dissent. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

ZOE LOFGREN. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

MAXINE WATERS. 

STEVE COHEN. 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR. 

MIKE QUIGLEY. 

JUDY CHU. 

TED DEUTCH. 

JARED POLIS. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS