I 
112TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 3541 
To prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, 
and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
DECEMBER 1, 2011 
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona (for himself, Mr. COLE, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. 
LANKFORD, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. PENCE, Mr. 
CHABOT, Mr. POSEY, Mr. GRAVES of Georgia, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. 
HULTGREN, Mr. GARRETT, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. 
FORBES, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mrs. LUMMIS, 
Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. YODER, Mr. 
WALBERG, Mr. BOREN, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. LIPIN-
SKI, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. PEARCE, 
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. ROSS of Florida, Mr. KINZINGER of Illi-
nois, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. AKIN, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Mr. JONES, 
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. 
MCCAUL, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. 
LATTA, Mrs. ROBY, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. MCCOTTER, 
Mr. COBLE, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. PETERSON, and Mr. SMITH of 
New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis 
of sex or race, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Susan B. Anthony and 
Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 
2011’’. 
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 funda-
mental human rights and civil rights as men. 
(B) United States law prohibits the dis-
similar treatment of males and females who are 
similarly situated and prohibits sex discrimina-
tion in various contexts, including the provision 
of employment, education, housing, health in-
surance coverage, and athletics. 
(C) Sex is an immutable characteristic as-
certainable at the earliest stages of human de-
velopment through existing medical technology 
and procedures commonly in use, including ma-
ternal-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 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 abor-
tion 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 dis-
crimination. Sex-selection abortions are typi-
cally 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 un-
born child can experience pain at 20 weeks 
after conception, and perhaps substantially ear-
lier. By definition, sex-selection abortions do 
not implicate the health of the mother of the 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
unborn, but instead are elective procedures mo-
tivated by sex or gender bias. 
(E) The targeted victims of sex-selection 
abortions performed in the United States and 
worldwide are overwhelmingly female. The se-
lective abortion of females is female infanticide, 
the intentional killing of unborn females, due to 
the preference for male offspring or ‘‘son pref-
erence’’. Son preference is reinforced by the low 
value associated, by some segments of the world 
community, with female offspring. Those seg-
ments tend to regard female offspring as finan-
cial burdens to a family over their lifetime due 
to their perceived inability to earn or provide fi-
nancially for the family unit as can a male. In 
addition, due to social and legal convention, fe-
male 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 fe-
male equality, and fueling the elimination of fe-
males’ right to exist in instances of sex-selection 
abortion. 
(F) Sex-selection abortions are not ex-
pressly prohibited by United States law or the 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 Uni-
versity 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 dis-
criminatory 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 States, the 
evidence reveals that female feticide is also oc-
curring in the United States. 
(G) The American public supports a prohi-
bition of sex-selection abortion. In a March 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2006 Zogby International poll, 86 percent of 
Americans agreed that sex-selection abortion 
should be illegal, yet only 3 States proscribe 
sex-selection abortion. 
(H) Despite the failure of the United 
States to proscribe sex-selection abortion, the 
United States Congress has expressed repeat-
edly, through Congressional resolution, strong 
condemnation of policies promoting sex-selec-
tion abortion in the ‘‘Communist Government 
of China’’. Likewise, at the 2007 United Na-
tion’s Annual Meeting of the Commission on 
the Status of Women, 51st Session, the United 
States delegation spearheaded a resolution call-
ing on countries to condemn sex-selective abor-
tion, a policy directly contradictory to the per-
missiveness of current United States law, which 
places no restriction on the practice of sex-se-
lection abortion. The United Nations Commis-
sion on the Status of Women has urged govern-
ments of all nations ‘‘to take necessary meas-
ures to prevent . . . prenatal sex selection’’. 
(I) A 1990 report by Harvard University 
economist Amartya Sen, estimated that more 
than 100 million women were ‘‘demographically 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
missing’’ from the world as early as 1990 due 
to sexist practices, including sex-selection abor-
tion. 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 Repub-
lic of India, the United Kingdom, and the Peo-
ple’s Republic of China—have enacted restric-
tions on sex-selection, and have steadily contin-
ued to strengthen prohibitions and penalties. 
The United States, by contrast, has no law in 
place to restrict sex-selection abortion, estab-
lishing the United States as affording less pro-
tection from sex-based feticide than the Repub-
lic 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 Commis-
sion on the Status of Women. Public state-
ments from within the medical community re-
veal that citizens of other countries come to the 
United States for sex-selection procedures that 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
would be criminal in their country of origin. Be-
cause 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 op-
poses sex-selection abortion. The American Col-
lege of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, com-
monly known as ‘‘ACOG’’, stated in its Feb-
ruary 2007 Ethics Committee Opinion, Number 
360, that sex-selection is inappropriate for fam-
ily planning purposes because sex-selection ‘‘ul-
timately supports sexist practices’’. Likewise, 
the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 
has opined that sex-selection for family plan-
ning purposes is ethically problematic, inappro-
priate, and should be discouraged. 
(L) Sex-selection abortion results in an un-
natural sex-ratio imbalance. An unnatural sex- 
ratio imbalance is undesirable, due to the in-
ability of the numerically predominant sex to 
find mates. Experts worldwide document that a 
significant sex-ratio imbalance in which males 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
numerically predominate can be a cause of in-
creased 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 con-
sequent increase in kidnapping and other vio-
lent 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 funda-
mental human rights and civil rights as the ma-
jority. 
(B) United States law prohibits the dis-
similar 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 em-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ployment, education, housing, health insurance 
coverage, and athletics. 
(C) A ‘‘race-selection abortion’’ is an abor-
tion 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 vio-
lence, predicated on race discrimination. By 
definition, race-selection abortions do not impli-
cate the health of mother of the unborn, but in-
stead are elective procedures motivated by race 
bias. 
(D) Only one State, Arizona, has enacted 
law to proscribe the performance of race-selec-
tion abortions. 
(E) Race-selection abortions have the ef-
fect of diminishing the number of minorities in 
the American population and therefore, the 
American electorate. 
(F) Race-selection abortion reinforces ra-
cial discrimination and has no place in a civ-
ilized society. 
(3) GENERAL FINDINGS.— 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(A) The history of the United States in-
cludes 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 dis-
crimination. Women, once subjected to sex dis-
crimination 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 de-
nied them equal protection of the laws, now 
have that right guaranteed by the 14th amend-
ment. The elimination of discriminatory prac-
tices has been and is among the highest prior-
ities and greatest achievements of American 
history. 
(B) Implicitly approving the discriminatory 
practices of sex-selection abortion and race-se-
lection abortion by choosing not to prohibit 
them will reinforce these inherently discrimina-
tory 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 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 compel-
ling interest in acting—indeed it must act—to 
prohibit sex-selection abortion and race-selec-
tion 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 
(4) section 8 of article I to make all laws nec-
essary and proper for the carrying into execution of 
powers vested by the Constitution in the Govern-
ment of the United States. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 fol-
lowing: 
‘‘§ 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 inten-
tionally injure or intimidate any person for the pur-
pose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection 
abortion; 
‘‘(3) solicits or accepts funds for the perform-
ance 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 im-
prisoned not more than 5 years, or both. 
‘‘(b) CIVIL REMEDIES.— 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
‘‘(1) CIVIL ACTION BY WOMAN ON WHOM THE 
ABORTION IS PERFORMED.—A woman upon whom 
an abortion has been performed or attempted in vio-
lation of subsection (a)(2), may in a civil action 
against any person who engaged in the violation ob-
tain 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 en-
gaged in the violation, obtain appropriate relief, un-
less 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, in-
cluding loss of companionship and support, oc-
casioned by the violation of this section; and 
‘‘(B) punitive damages. 
‘‘(4) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.— 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
‘‘(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, phy-
sician’s assistant, nurse, counselor, or other medical or 
mental health professional shall report known or suspected 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
violations of any of this section to appropriate law enforce-
ment 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-selec-
tion 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) 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; 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
‘‘(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 sec-
tion 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 inva-
lidity shall not affect the portions or applications of this 
Act which can be given effect without the invalid portion 
or application. 
Æ 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:44 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H3541.IH
H3541
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS