On December 6, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on H.R. 3541, the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA).
Sponsored by Chair Trent Franks (R-AZ), H.R. 3541 would fine or imprison a person who knowingly performs, coerces, solicits, or accepts funds for the performance of an abortion sought on the basis of gender or race. The bill would provide civil remedies to women in instances where sex- or race-selective abortions are performed in violation of the bill. Family relatives, such as the father of the unborn child and maternal grandparents if the mother is an unemancipated minor, also could seek civil remedies for abortions performed in violation of the bill. Women who receive gender- or race-selective abortions would not be prosecuted or held civilly liable.
In addition, the legislation would allow qualified individuals to obtain injunctive relief to prevent abortion providers from performing abortions in violation of the bill. Health care professionals would be required to report known or suspected violations of the bill; they would be subject to fines or imprisonment for failing to do so.
“What will this bill do?” asked Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI). “First, it will make it more difficult for women of color to obtain the basic reproductive health care services that should be available to all women. By threatening health care professionals with prison time and with law suits, it is inevitable that they will be reluctant to treat some patients – Asian and Pacific Islanders, African Americans, and interracial couples – where someone might suspect that race or sex selection may have been a factor in the patient’s decision. Doctors will be reluctant to perform any tests that might reveal the sex of the fetus, or to reveal that information to their patients, information to which every patient has a right…Second, it would provide an opportunity for this most reactionary Supreme Court to attack the very legal underpinning of Roe v. Wade. Not since that decision has government ever arrogated to itself the power to decide whether a woman’s reasons for a pre-viability abortion are satisfactory…Third, this bill does absolutely nothing to provide women with the tools they need to get adequate prenatal care so that their babies, female and male, can come into this world healthy, and so that both mother and child can thrive.”
Steven Aden, vice president and senior counsel of Human Life Issues at the Alliance Defense Fund, said, “The United States is far from immune to this problem [of sex-selective abortion]. In 2008, researchers Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund of Columbia University analyzed year-2000 census data to document male-biased sex ratios among U.S.-born children of certain Asian and South Asian populations. These researchers concluded that the demonstrated deviation from the norm in favor of sons was ‘evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage.’ This Son Preference was true regardless of the absence in the United States of many factors used to rationalize son bias in other countries (e.g., high dowry payments, patrilocal marriage patterns, and China’s one-child policy) and was irrespective of the mother’s citizenship status; ‘[i]f anything,’ they noted, ‘mothers with citizenship had more male-biased offspring sex ratios,’ although the difference was not considered statistically significant…In the case of racial selection abortion, it is no exaggeration to say that the African American population of the United States has been decimated by the widespread availability of abortion on demand in the last forty years, and particularly by the placement of abortion providers in majority-minority population centers. Nationally, for all racial groups, the abortion ratio was 231 abortions for every 1,000 live births. Among women from the 37 health agencies that reported results for race in 2007, ‘Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races.’ In the 25 reporting areas that reported cross-classified race and ethnicity data for 2007, ‘non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rates (32.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 – 44 years) and ratios (480 abortions [for every] 1,000 live births).’ Non-Hispanic black women accounted for nearly as many abortions proportionately as non-Hispanic white women (34.4 percent for black women vs. 37.1 percent for whites). In 15 out of 38 reporting areas for which the data was available, the percentage of African American abortions was approximately forty percent or higher, ranging up to 59.1 percent in one area (Georgia). Thus, although African Americans account for only 13.6 percent of the U.S. population, they account for over one-third of all abortions nationally, and in many states, that percentage is much higher.”
Miriam Yeung of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) testified: “This bill discriminates against women of color. It undermines and calls into question our ability to make decisions about our own bodies…Disturbingly, this measure would make health care outcomes for women of coloreven worse than they already are. African American women are already three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes than white women, and their unintended pregnancy rate is 67 percent compared to 40 percent for white women. Making abortion harder to obtain will cause women to seek unsafe illegal abortions and exacerbate racial disparities in healthcare. Ms. Yeung added, “As an organization that represents Asian American and Pacific Islander [API] 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 U.S. 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 health care for them, and lower the rates of gender-based 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.”
Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, and Edwin Black of the Feature Group, also testified.
