CRS Issue Statement on Abortion, Family
Planning, and Reproductive Health
Jon O. Shimabukuro, Coordinator
Legislative Attorney
March 13, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
IS40251
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
CRS Issue Statement on Abortion, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health
ongress has maintained a longstanding interest in abortion since 1973 when the U.S.
Supreme Court first recognized that a woman has a constitutional right to choose whether
C to terminate her pregnancy. Since the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, there have been
numerous efforts in Congress to restrict the availability of abortion through proposed
constitutional and statutory amendments, and through funding restrictions attached to
appropriations and authorizations measures. Legislation that addresses government interference
with abortion, the abridgement of state parental consent and notification requirements, fetal pain,
and the funding of international family planning organizations is expected in the 111th Congress.
The 2008 election and the increased Democratic majority in Congress appear to have focused
greater attention on the Freedom of Choice Act (“FOCA”), a measure that would codify the
Court’s decision in Roe by stating that a government may not deny or interfere with a woman’s
right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability, or to terminate a
pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the
woman. The FOCA would authorize an aggrieved individual to obtain appropriate relief,
including relief against a government, in a civil action. The incoming President has indicated that
he would sign the FOCA if it was approved by Congress.
A new rule that implements existing federal health care conscience protection laws could result in
congressional activity. The rule, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services in
December 2008, has proven controversial because some believe that it would make it more
difficult to obtain health care services and information related to abortion and contraception.
Legislation that would appear to have halted the new rule was introduced in the 110th Congress.
The Protecting Patients and Health Care Act was introduced in the House and Senate, but was not
considered by either chamber. Rescission of the rule through administrative action is likely.
However, the 111th Congress could also respond to the rule with legislation that amends the
underlying conscience protection laws.
Congress may also consider proposals designed to prevent the abridgement of state parental
consent and notification requirements. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
(“CIANA”), which would prohibit the knowing transport of a minor across state lines with the
intent that the minor obtain an abortion, has been introduced in the past two Congresses and is
expected to be reintroduced in the 111th Congress. The CIANA would also require a physician
performing an abortion on a minor from another state to notify the minor’s parents before the
abortion could be performed.
Concern over the possible pain experienced by a fetus during an abortion is likely to result in the
reintroduction of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (“UCPAA”). The UCPAA would require
an abortion provider or his agent to notify a pregnant woman of the fetus’s ability to experience
pain prior to an abortion. The measure would also require the abortion provider or his agent to
present the pregnant woman with a brochure that describes the availability of pain-reducing drugs
that could be administered to the fetus to reduce the experience of pain. Questions remain,
however, over a fetus’s neurological capacity to experience pain. A clinical review in the Journal
of the American Medical Association found that the fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the
third trimester and that there is little to no evidence on the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic
or analgesic techniques.
Congress will likely consider abortion and abortion-related matters in the context of
appropriations for various federal agencies. Longstanding funding restrictions related to abortion,
for example, have been included in some annual foreign operations appropriations measures. Two
Congressional Research Service
1
CRS Issue Statement on Abortion, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health
issues in particular—the Mexico City policy involving funding for foreign non-governmental
organizations, and restrictions on funding for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) because of its
alleged activities in China—have remained controversial and continue to be prominently featured
in the family planning and abortion debate. These policies may be reevaluated in light of the
election and the increased Democratic majority in Congress.
Finally, the 111th Congress will likely consider a variety of issues involving family planning and
reproductive health. Legislation related to family planning and Title X of the Public Health
Service Act, including appropriations measures that could affect the funding of Title X family
planning initiatives, is expected.
Issue Team Members
Jon O. Shimabukuro, Coordinator
Amanda K. Sarata
Legislative Attorney
Analyst in Health Policy and Genetics
jshimabukuro@crs.loc.gov, 7-7990
asarata@crs.loc.gov, 7-7641
Luisa Blanchfield
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Analyst in International Relations
Specialist in Social Policy
lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov, 7-0856
csolomonfears@crs.loc.gov, 7-7306
David F. Burrelli
Kenneth R. Thomas
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Legislative Attorney
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-8033
kthomas@crs.loc.gov, 7-5006
Judith A. Johnson
Joyce Thorpe
Specialist in Biomedical Policy
Information Research Specialist
jajohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-7077
jthorpe@crs.loc.gov, 7-9081
Angela Napili
Erin D. Williams
Information Research Specialist
Specialist in Public Health and Bioethics
anapili@crs.loc.gov, 7-0135
ewilliams@crs.loc.gov, 7-4897
Congressional Research Service
2