PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 157.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 10, 2005
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion (deems such transporting to be a de facto abridgment of the right of a parent under any law in the minor’s state of residence that requires parental involvement in the minor’s abortion decision). Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Protects from prosecution or civil liability the minor or the minor’s parents for violations of this Act.
Makes it an affirmative defense to a prosecution or civil action under this Act that a defendant reasonably believed that before the minor obtained the abortion, the required parental consent or notification or judicial authorization took place.
Authorizes any parent who suffers harm from a violation of this Act to seek relief in a civil action.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Defines "parent" to include a guardian, legal custodian, or person standing in loco parentis.
Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on an physician who performs or induces an abortion on an out-of-state minor without complying with parental notification requirements. Allows certain exceptions, including abortions necessary to save the life of the minor.
People & committees
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-18] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 157.
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Judiciary, H. Rept. 109-51, Part II.
Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Judiciary, H. Rept. 109-51, Part II.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 270 - 157 (Roll no. 144). (text: CR H2606-2607)
House roll call 144 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 270 - 157 (Roll no. 144).(text: CR H2606-2607)
House roll call 144 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 183 - 245 (Roll no. 143). (consideration: CR H2614-2615; text: CR H2614)
House roll call 143 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Nadler motion to recommit.
Mr. Nadler moved to recommit with instructions to Judiciary.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H2614)
The House adopted the amendment as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 748.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was the question of adoption of specified amendments which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Jackson-Lee (TX) amendment the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jackson -Lee (TX) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further consideration until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 236 the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the Jackson-Lee (TX) amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Scott (VA) amendment the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Scott (VA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further consideration until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 236 the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the Scott (VA) amendment.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 748.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Mark Foley to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 236 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 748 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Specified amendments are in order.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 236. (consideration: CR H2593-2616)
Rule H. Res. 236 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 236 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 748 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Specified amendments are in order.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 30.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-51.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-51.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 20 - 13.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1900, H1943)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1872-1873)
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
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: Apr 7, 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.748 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.748 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.748 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.748 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.