I 
114TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 4924 
To prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, 
and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
APRIL 13, 2016 
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona (for himself, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. PETERSON, Mrs. 
BLACKBURN, Ms. JENKINS of Kansas, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. SALMON, Mr. 
GOSAR, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. 
KING of Iowa, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. PITTS, Mr. 
STEWART, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. FINCHER, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. 
WALBERG, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. CULBER-
SON, Mr. PALMER, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
RUSSELL, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. 
LOUDERMILK, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. MESSER, Mr. 
FLEISCHMANN, Mr. GRAVES of Georgia, Mr. OLSON, Mr. WESTMORE-
LAND, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. 
CRAMER, Mr. POMPEO, Mr. GOHMERT, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. GOWDY, 
Mr. BENISHEK, Mr. JONES, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. YODER, Mr. PITTENGER, 
Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina, Mr. BRADY of Texas, 
Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. BISHOP 
of Utah, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. DUFFY, Mr. 
LAMBORN, Mr. HULTGREN, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. WESTERMAN, Mr. 
FARENTHOLD, Mr. SHUSTER, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. BYRNE, Mr. JOLLY, Mr. 
PALAZZO, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. KLINE, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. 
ROTHFUS, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. RIBBLE, Mrs. WAGNER, Mr. BABIN, Mr. 
KNIGHT, Mr. FLORES, Mr. LATTA, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. 
HUDSON, Mr. FORBES, and Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia) introduced 
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis 
of sex or race, and for other purposes. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:27 Apr 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\H4924.IH
H4924
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prenatal Non-
discrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2016’’. 
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 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:27 Apr 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4924.IH
H4924
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 sex selection 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 abor-
tion. 
(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 2d or 
3rd trimester of pregnancy, often after the un-
born 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 substan-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:27 Apr 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4924.IH
H4924
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
tially earlier. By definition, sex-selection abor-
tions do not implicate the health of the mother 
of the unborn, but instead are elective proce-
dures 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 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. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:27 Apr 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4924.IH
H4924
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
(F) Sex-selection abortions are not ex-
pressly prohibited by United States law or the 
laws of 46 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 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 States, the evidence reveals 
that female feticide is also occurring in the 
United States. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:27 Apr 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4924.IH
H4924
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
(G) The American public supports a prohi-
bition 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 eight States proscribe 
sex-selection abortion. In a 2012 poll conducted 
by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, 77 percent of 
Americans agreed that sex-selection abortion 
should be illegal. 
(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-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:27 Apr 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4924.IH
H4924
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 
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. More recent 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 resolution and by 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:27 Apr 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4924.IH
H4924
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 
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. The American Congress of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists (‘‘ACOG’’) 
stated in its 2007 Ethics Committee Opinion, 
Number 360, that sex selection is inappropriate 
because it ‘‘ultimately supports sexist prac-
tices’’. The American Society of Reproductive 
Medicine (‘‘ASRM’’) published a 2004 Ethics 
Committee Opinion, noting that central to the 
controversy of sex selection in the use of as-
sisted reproductive technology (‘‘ART’’) is the 
potential for ‘‘inherent gender discrimination’’, 
. . . the ‘‘risk of psychological harm to sex-se-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:27 Apr 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4924.IH
H4924
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
lected offspring (i.e., by placing on them expec-
tations that are too high),’’ . . . and ‘‘rein-
forcement of gender bias in society as a whole.’’ 
Sex selection in ART 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 de-
pend 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 ac-
count of concerns for the impact of sex-selection 
on goals of gender equality.’’ The American As-
sociation of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gyne-
cologists, an organization with hundreds of 
members—many of whom are former abortion-
ists—makes the following declaration: ‘‘Sex se-
lection abortions are more graphic examples of 
the damage that abortion inflicts on women. In 
addition to increasing premature labor in subse-
quent pregnancies, increasing suicide and major 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:27 Apr 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4924.IH
H4924
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS