PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 581.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 15, 2000
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, unless it is necessary to save the mother's life that is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. Prescribes penalties.Defines a "partial birth abortion" as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally: (1) vaginally delivers some portion of an intact living fetus until the fetus is partially outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the fetus while the fetus is partially outside the mother's body; and (2) performs the overt act that kills the fetus while the intact living fetus is partially outside the mother's body.Authorizes the father, if married to the mother at the time of the abortion, and the maternal grandparents of the fetus, if the mother is under 18 years of age, to obtain specified relief in a civil action, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.Authorizes a defendant accused of an offense under this Act to seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother.Prohibits the prosecution of a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed for conspiracy to violate this Act or under provisions regarding punishment as a principal or an accessory or for concealment of a felony.
People & committees
Rep. Canady, Charles T. [R-FL-12] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 581.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 287 - 141 (Roll no. 104). (text: CR H1779)
House roll call 104 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 287 - 141 (Roll no. 104).(text: CR H1779)
House roll call 104 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 140 - 289 (Roll no. 103). (text: CR H1799)
House roll call 103 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the Committee on the Judiciary to report the bill back to the House with language providing for averting "serious adverse longterm health consequences to the mother".
Mr. Frank (MA) moved to recommit with instructions to Judiciary.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with two hours of debate on H.R. 3660.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3660 with 2 hours of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. After passage of H.R. 3660, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 1692 and to consider the bill in the House. It shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of S. 1692 and insert the provisions of H.R. 3660 as passed by the House. All points of order against the motion to strike and insert are waived. If the motion is adopted and the Senate bill is passed, it shall be in order for the House to insist on its amendment and request a conference with the Senate.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 457. (consideration: CR H1779-1801)
Rule H. Res. 457 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 457 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3660 with 2 hours of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. After passage of H.R. 3660, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 1692 and to consider the bill in the House. It shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of S. 1692 and insert the provisions of H.R. 3660 as passed by the House. All points of order against the motion to strike and insert are waived. If the motion is adopted and the Senate bill,
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3660 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3660 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3660 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3660 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.