tv Hearing on Abortion Access Care CSPAN May 18, 2022 10:07am-3:06pm EDT
in abortion care and access. before we begin, i'd like to remind members we have established an email address in distribution list educated to circulating exhibits motions and other materials the members might want to offer as part of our hearing today. if you would like to submit materials, please send them to the email address that has been previously distributed to your offices and we will circulate the materials to members of the staff as quickly as we can. i will now recognize myself for an opening statement. two weeks ago in a leak of a draft opinion from the supreme court, we learned that for the first time in its history the court may be on the precipice of overturning president to take away a constitutional right. so doing, it would be revoked the constitutional right to abortion. a fundamental right first recognized almost 50 years ago and roe v. wade. one that millions of americans have relied on for half a century. i want to stay at the outset, i
do not condone such leaks. to those responsible, must be held responsible. now that we had this information, we cannot ignore the reality and the magnitude of what the court seems poised to do. what congressional republicans have said they will do once they're in power to enact a ban on abortion nationwide. decision to become apparent guns to those and vigils. she may consult with her doctor, or her loved ones to inform that decision. i hope that she has such people in her life to help her make that decision. the decision belongs to her, period. overturning roe we remove from women the power to decide the fundamental question of whether to carry or terminate a pregnancy. instead we get that power to the state. it is both timely and appropriate for the just very committee to educate the american people about the devastating impact that such a decision would have. to examine the ongoing crisis in abortion care access that
already affects people all across the nation. before continuing, i want to say something to those, to all those who are currently considering abortion care. despite these very real concerns about the state of access to abortion care, or it's continuing legality, let me be clear. abortion remains legal. you're right to get an abortion rate continues to be constitutionally protected. at least for now. making decisions about when and how to start a family is essential to women's lives. the right to decide whether to carry or terminate a pregnancy is essential to life, liberty, and equality. it is the very essence of what it means to have bodily autonomy. which is a prerequisite for freedom. again, to say it simply, the decision to become apparent belongs to that individual. period. no court decision is more essential to protecting a white women's individual autonomy than roe v. wade, the landmark 1973 case that recognized a
constitutional right to abortion. rowan presented a watershed moment in our nation's history. recognizing the right of women to make reproductive decisions as a fundamental right guaranteed by the u.s. constitution, and a pillar of women's equality. in doing, so the supreme court continues a series of rulings that ejected the government interference and americans most intimate life decisions. to the court, quote, you decisions were more personal and intimate. properly prided, or -- then a women's decision whether to end the pregnancy, close quote. almost 20 years later, planned parenthood versus casey, the supreme court reaffirmed the right to abortion finding it central to a woman's dignity, autonomy, and status as an equal citizen. indeed, if americans cannot make decisions about the reproductive health they, cannot make decisions about
starting a career, going to school, opening a business, and planning their life. unfortunately, roe and casey remain under constant threat. resulting in on garden crisis and access to abortion and other vital health care services. over the last decade, state legislatures have passed hundreds of bills designed to block individuals from accessing abortion care. under the disingenuous claim that these laws protect women's health, these states are deliberately attempting to put abortion out a breach. this is so in spite of the fact that numerous studies have included getting birth involves more serious health complications then having an abortion. meanwhile, according to the recently leaked draft majority opinion in a pending case of dobbs versus jackson women's health organization, hosted by justice samuel alito, a right-wing majority in the supreme court seems poised to revoke the right to abortion altogether.
to be clear, the straps remains just that. a draft opinion. we await the courts actual decision, expected to be handed down in the next several weeks. nonetheless, we can not simply ignore the fact that the nation now appears to stand at a constitutional turning point. at the supreme court overturns or sucked dearly curtails roe, a precedent that women have relied on for almost a half century, to make decisions about how best to order their lives, generations to come will have fewer rights than those that preceded them. at least 23 states have laws in place to limit abortions, including 13 that have trigger laws that would automatically and all abortions if roe were to fall. at least eight states that have pre-row bands that would be, once, again become enforceable 's should bro be overturned. practically overnight, whether the government protects the essential individual rights to make reproductive health care decisions, or defend entirely
upon where in this country a person lives. furthermore, and a leaked draft opinion becomes the courts actual decision, it would exacerbate an already dire crisis in abortion care access. the consequences will be devastating. women who cannot afford to travel, women of color, and women in rural communities will be disproportionately affected by state abortion bans and restrictions. people who work hourly jobs already have children, or live many miles away from abortion provider faced impossible decisions. often instrumental obstacles in finding the time, money, and support to access the care that they need. the care that is integral to their dignity and their fundamental freedom to live their lives on their own terms. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try desperately to change the subject and hope that no one notices. if justice toledo's draft opinion hold, millions americans will lose their fundamental constitutional right overnight.
do not let them get away with. they will try to moderate the waters today by accusing democrats of bullying the court, as if the wealthy conservative justices voice to hand out this decision habit worse than the women and health care providers who risk imprisonment if they seek a reform abortion after this decision takes effect. they will try to distract you from their ultimate goal, a ban on abortion nationwide without of succession. the public and voices in the media have tried to downplay the consequences of all this by arguing that the leak itself is the problem. and that it threatens the integrity of the court. as i said from the start, the leak is a problem. but i will not be lectured on how to best protect democratic institutions from the crowd that cheered on the mob on january six of last year. and continues to perpetuate a gross lie about the last election. -- keep in mind the most threatening aspect of this
draft decision. justice alito's words and logic used today to undermine the right to abortion provide a roadmap for the erosion of other fundamental rights, including the rights to marriage, the contraception, and to make decisions about raising their own children. justice alito's assurances to the contrary and this draft opinion are called comfort. use the same argue about their right to marriage in oakland fell. there's no reason to believe that the same five justices will not engage in a similar raw exercise of power to overturn other basic rights of. levees and gentlemen, at base, safe, legal, and accessible abortion continues to be fundamental to individual equality, autonomy, and personal liberty. the decision to become apparent belongs to that individual. we cannot go backward. congressman must now stand up with americans around the country and refused to turn back the clock.
republican leadership is already told us what they want congress to do. for all their talk about returning power to the states, senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, has already said, a national ban on abortion will be under consideration should roe be overturned. when that happens, living in a blue state will not save you for their attend to take your decision about becoming apparent away from you. nationwide, these nationwide, without exception, means without exception. we cannot let that happen. instead, congress must act to ensure every woman, regardless of geographic location, income, race, or any other factor retains her constitutional right to access abortion. we will fight for legislation at every level of government to protect women's health, to protect access to contraception, to protect access to ivf, to protect abortion rights. women must have the freedom to make decisions about their
reproductive health without anyone questioning their intellect, morals, or honesty. i stand with the members of this committee and millions of americans around this country ready to fight for reproductive freedom. i thank our witnesses for being here, i look forward to this testimony. >> i now recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, for his opening statement. >> thank you mister chairman, it is about intimidation. it started in 2018 when the left and democrats lied about justice kavanaugh, through that individual in such a savage way. i've never seen anything like. it two years later, 2020, we saw senator schumer stand on the steps of the supreme court and threaten sitting justices. here's what he said. i want to tell you, gorsuch, i want to tell you kavanaugh, you release the world with. and you will pay the price you won't know it would hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. it is about intimidation. 13 months ago, president biden
launched a presidential commission on the supreme court to explore packing the court. it was no accident that that's a month, the chairman of this committee, the house judiciary committee introduced legislation to pack the supreme court. four weeks ago, this committee held a hearing in the subcommittee laying the groundwork to impeach justice thomas. of course, three weeks ago, the draft ops opinion was leaked for the first time it's ever happened. draft opinion. late last week, this committee, the democrats passed legislation requiring among other things that people who want to submit briefs to the supreme court would be required to disclose all of their donors in an attempt to chill first amendment protected free speech. the latest attempt to intimidate the court started ten minutes ago. when this hearing was gaveled
into order. this hearing is about the very issue in front of the court as we speak. while this is happening, the democrats in the house have blocked ask from considering legislation, passed unanimously by the senate to give the supreme court justices more security. they need more security now more than ever. their protesters are outside their homes protesting each and every day. protesters showed up i justices place of warship on mother's day. you know why they're trying to bully and intimidate the court? you know i? because the evidence for overturning roe is overwhelming. the reasoning and the logic and the majority opinion is so strong. here's what it said. roe is on a collision course with the constitution from the day it was decided. and casey prepares to rated its air. as the air's do not concern some arcing corner of the law of little importance to the american people. further stated, we hold that
roe and casey must be overruled. the constitution makes no reference to abortion. no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. finally, the opinion states, it is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the peoples elected representatives. to the peoples elected representatives. those representatives, in the state of mississippi, passed legislation, that legislation was signed by the governor of mississippi. also elected by the people of mississippi. what did that legislation, adopted by the duly elected representatives of the people of that state say? if an unborn child is 15 weeks old, you cannot take their life. you cannot do. specifically, it said this, except in a medical emergency, a person shall, not or knowingly perform or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of that human being has been determined to be greater than 15 weeks.
why? why do they pick that timeframe? at five weeks, and unborn dot child's heart begins being, i ten weeks vital organs begin to function, at 11 weeks the diaphragm is developing, at 12 weeks the child has taken on human form in all relevant respects. people in mississippi's legislation passed a law in question because they understand that life is precious and it should be protected. they understand that life is a gift from our creator. they understand that you can't pursue happiness if you first don't have liberty. and you never have a real liberty, you never have to freedom of government won't protect your most fundamental right, your right to live. i hope the draft opinion is the final opinion. because it's a win for logic, it's a win for the constitution, and most importantly, it's a win for the sanctity of human life.
finally, i hope the attempt to intimidate the court and now. mister chairman, i yield back. all the opening statements will be included in the record. i will now introduce today's witnesses. dr. yashica robinson is a board certified gynecologist. she served on the board of directors and positions for reproductive health, and it is an attending physician at the alabama women's wellness center. dr. robinson receives her b.a. from talladega college, her empty from the morehouse school of medicine. amy around the day, i hope i got that pronunciation correct, amy around the day is the executive director of texas, she serves on the board of
quality texas, and the advisory council of reproach action. as we testify a story. she and received her undergraduate degree at the university of texas, and a law degree from new york law school. cloth and glenn foster is president and ceo of americans united for life. previously, she spent seven years as a litigation council with the lions defending freedom. she then founded and managed a law practice and led euthanasia, prevention as -- executive director. miss foster earned her b.a. from dairy, college and a masters degree for the university of south florida, and a j.d. from georgetown university law center. michelle brasher goodwin is the chancellors professor of law and is the founding director of the center for biotechnology and global health policy at the university of california irvine. previously, professor goodwin was the everett fraser professor at the university of
minnesota. with appointments in law school, metal school school, and the school of public health. the receiver behave in the university of wisconsin, her j.d. from boston college law school, and receive llm and ask you the degrees in the university of wisconsin. we welcome our distinguished witnesses, we thank them for participating today. i will begin by swearing in our witnesses. i asked that are witnesses in person please rise and raise your right hand. i asked that are remote witness please turn on your audio and make sure i can see your face, and raise your right hand while i administer the oath. do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and believe, so help you god? >> i do. >> let the record show, the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you, please be seated. please note, that each of your written statements will be entered into the record in its
entirety. accordingly, i asked that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. to help you stay within that time, there is a timing on your table. when the light switch touches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, it signals your five minutes have expired. witness appearing virtually, there is a timer on your screen to help you keep track of time. dr. robinson, you may begin. >> good morning,, chairman nadler. ranking member jordan, and distinguished members of the committee. my name is dr. yashica robinson, i use she her pronouns. i'm a board certified ob/gyn. a board miner but for sessions for reproductive health. and the medical director of ammo them a women center. one of alabama's last clinics that provides abortion care. as a full spectrum of suspicion, gynecologist, i've a busy
obstructionist practice right give prenatal care, deliver babies, and treat people after they give birth. i also provide abortion care. i know patients deserve access to the full spectrum of reproductive health care options. as of today, abortion remains illegal in alabama, and states across the country. but it is not likely to remain that way. this has never been a theoretical exercise. we are talking about the real health and lives of our neighbors, family members, and friends. i came to this work, not only because i believe all people deserved to make decisions about their lives, health, and bodies. also, because of my passion for young people. one that is deeply rooted in my personal experience with becoming pregnant as a young adult. prior to finishing high school, i learned that i was pregnant. as a result of fear and lack of resources, by the time i confided my mother and grandmother, i had no choice. i was going to be a mother. becoming a teen mother came
with many harsh realities. i love my children with all my heart. i know that everyone should be able to make the decision to parents for themselves. i have been in the shoes of many of the young people that i see in my clinic. this important for them to know that regardless of their decision, i am here to support them. access to care should not look different based on your zip code. because a medically unnecessary abortion restrictions, i see patients forced to travel up to 12 hours from as far away as louisiana, florida, and now texas. because of the ripple effect of abortion bans, stigma, and target harassment, all leading to other providers being forced to shut their doors. i know of patients who have slept in their cars overnight as a result of mandatory delay periods, because they had no other choice. these are restrictions at needless cost and delays, their effects on the patients i care for our painful for me to see. things are only going to get worse, as states move to ban
abortion, should the protections of roe and casey, which are already illusory for far too many people in this country, be overturned. as someone who cares for people throughout pregnancy, maternal health is of the utmost importance to me. in alabama, black women are nearly five times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes than white women. this is higher than the national average, which is quoted to be three times more likely. it will continue to worsen as more states limit access to abortion care. systemic barriers, racism, and white supremacy are at the root of both our maternal health crisis and our abortion access crisis. it is undeniable that without access to abortion, maternal mortality rates will continue to rise. i cannot emphasize enough that abortion is essential health care. receiving or providing this care should not be criminalized. by attempting to criminalize practitioners who provide abortion care, the bands that we have seen passed in alabama, and another states, threaten
people and communities that already suffering from a lack of health care resources. it compounds the complex scenarios that obstetricians like me routinely balance, as we make the best citizens we can in managing complicated pregnancy. restrictions on abortion effect everyone, yet fall hardest on those who are marginalized. and likely facing financial, and logistic barriers to care. these are the same people who are just disproportionately surveilled and targeted by law enforcement. some states have already begun to increase investigation and criminalization of pregnancy outcomes. this is not speculation. this is happening today. people have unjustly been arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for their pregnancy laws, and had their search histories and digital footprints used as evidence to prosecute and sentenced them. patients well founded fear of surveillance and criminalization leads them to distrust the health care system. ultimately, hurling our collective health and well-being. the truth is, as more states
and act abortion restrictions and attempt to ban abortion entirely, patients and providers will be put in an untenable situation. patients will be forced to leave their communities, providers forced to relocate to continue providing care, medical students and residents unable to receive education or training and abortion care. patients and providers fear criminal charges for seeking or receiving care. providing essential and normal health care. this is a future that is filled with control, fear, and coercion. the bottom line is this, abortion's health care. this is essential care that we must protect. the patients i care for in my community deserve dignity, autonomy, and agency. i urge the members of this committee to do everything they can in this moment to protect access to abortion care. our lives depend on it. thank you for holding this important hearing. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, miss
robbie day, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> good morning, thank you to the house judiciary committee for inviting me to provide testimony today. my name is aimee -- i use she her pronouns. i'm a test -- the executive director of a vow an organization that's for an resisted abortion care and reproductive rights for all texans through community building, education, and political advocacy. one in four of us will have an abortion one in five of us experienced mental health issues in a given year one in 25 americans live with a serious mental health illness such as bipolar disorder. i live at the intersection of all three i'm a first generation filipino american, and a first generation mexican
american. i'm here to speak on behalf of everyone's new abortion allowed them to care for their mental health and enabled them to thrive as a result my story is not uncommon. with the stigma surrounding both in portion and mental health disability it is rarely discussed. from my late teens into my mid 20s, i suffered from undiagnosed bipolar disorder. because i was a good student, i hit it well. in college, it was harder to identify. four months at a time i would be highly energetic, hyper productive, followed by periods of extreme depression. just existing was too hard. i try to self medicate, and attempted to end my life. in 2003, when i was 25 years old, i learned i was 12 weeks pregnant. i've been with my boyfriend for a year. we agreed almost immediately
that i would have an abortion. this was before many of the abortion bans in texas. i was able to access care fairly easily despite the cost of $500. i was empowered to have an abortion, because reproductive freedom was always a part of our families values. my father was an abortion provider in central and south texas from the 1970s to the 1990s. he switched his specialty from anesthesiology to obstetrics and gynecology in the 1970s. after witnessing the reproductions of unsafe abortions before legalization decided to provide abortions. when i was a child, he took me to the clinic. he provided abortions twice a month. he -- on those waiting in the clinic. my dad was a hero. in the year following my abortion, my father was diagnosed with a glioblastoma
brain tumor. as i spent more time with him, as he spiraled into depression, we both realize that i was not well. i concluded that in order to help him get through this ordeal, i needed to get help. when i finally found the medication that worked, i was a whole new person. treating my bipolar disorder enabled me to take care of my father after his brain surgery resulted in a stroke. i was mentally healthy for the first time in my adult life. i could be a full partner to my boyfriend, who is now my husband 16 years. during law school, when i was ready, i had two miscarriages, and then two children. my pregnancies were physically and mentally very difficult. after being apparent for the past 11 years, i have no doubt that if i had had an abortion,
if i hadn't had an abortion when i did, i would not have survived. my chosen pregnancies were not easy. they were exactly that. chosen. my children are my whole world. by 2019, texans when encounter over 26 different abortion restrictions. it was then, after my husband's vasectomy, that became pregnant for the sixth time. i had a medication abortion. a series of two safe and simple medications. while the abortion was safe and straightforward, the hurdles i had to go through where exponentially more difficult. that's still with all the privileges and resources i had at my disposal. if this had happened anytime in the last eight months, after sb8, the 60 ran right into effect, i would have to take off work, find childcare for my children, and travel at a state. that said happens anytime in last decade before sb8 went into effect, i would be able to get care in texas, but i would
also have encountered a 24-hour government mandate delay. a force monogram. the legislatively mandated, medically inaccurate, women's right to know book light and anti abortion counseling. when sb8 went into effect, the impact was immediate. people were confused about whether abortion was legal, afraid to ask their friends and family for help, and unsure if they could call abortion clinics or funds, they were afraid of being sued or putting their loved ones at risk. the way for cares increased clinics under for neighboring states because they care for the influx of patients from texas, as well as some of their own communities. texans have been forced to self manage their abortion, or continue their pregnancy, against their wishes. if the supreme court overturns roe v. wade, texas has triggered ban would go into effect 30 days after. banning abortion completely, with barely any exceptions. this is real, it is terrifying. everyone loves someone who had an abortion -- >> witness time has expired.
thank you. i now recognize you for five minutes. >> we are here today because there is an ongoing crisis in america. the crisis we are confronting's abortion. not abortion care, not abortion access, not abortion choice. no, we're here today, because there is a crisis and america concerning abortion itself, full stop. we are approaching 65 million americans dead from abortion. i know this firsthand. at 19, i have boarded my first child. i felt emotional and psychological pressure to end my child's life. i was alone. so many voices in the culture lie to me. somebody told me abortion was, okay was normal, was good even.
i live with you regret of abortion every day of my life since. abortion was damaging to me and deadly for my child. the truth is, abortion is always damaging and deadly. i understand, the other women on the panel today believe differently. i know their stories. i have read their testimony. what is never addressed in their testimony is the simple reality of abortion violence. abortion activism always requires euphemism, and misdirection. why? because of the violent nature of abortion. because it is, frankly, inconvenient. human persons, from their earliest, days poisoned in the womb and dismembered, torn limb from limb. bodies thrown into medical waistbands and in places like washington, d.c.. burned to power the lights of the city's homes and streets.
let that image stay with you for a moment. the next time you turn on the light, think of the incinerators, think about what we're doing -- so callously and so normally [inaudible] . always and everywhere the convictions opprobrium activists are damaging, deadly, and are devastating to the fabric of american democracy. to speak for the violence of abortion is to speak for injustice. there's no other way to put it. we once had allegedly serious citizens in america speak for slavery. many fought and even die to perpetuate that injustice. it seems incredible to us today. americans can and will overcome the injustice of abortion, just as americans did finally overcome the injustice of slavery. indeed, we are here today, the u.s. supreme court appears to be finally on the verge of reversing roe v. wade and
planned parenthood be casey. roe and casey are widely regarded by legal scholars on the left and the right as the courts greatest and most profound mistakes sands dred scott or -- the future of america, a post row america's a future full of hope. rose reversal will make it possible for americas lawmakers to once again affirmatively protect the human right to life. you enshrined law and policy that makes abortion unthinkable for even those most vulnerable to abortion propaganda. despite this historic moment, pro abortion members of congress recently voted to enshrine abortion in a more systemically and just way, even then row. quantifying row with threatened to invalidate state informed consent protections, quantifying row with threaten to invalidate reflection
periods, consumer tell him at protections, state prohibitions against race, or sex, or genetic discrimination. and state laws protecting human persons at are before the point of viability. nowhere do efforts to quantify roe and to federal law mention either the child or the democratic will of the american people. everything real about the mother and child evaporates into thin air. the american people, through their elected officials, recognize the need for basic oversight. for genuine form consent, and for the interest of the child to matter. it is pro abortion members of congress who are out of step with the american people. it is a biological reality that a pre-bone child is a member of the human family. we want a true constitutional order that equally protects all members of the human family. even president biden, despite being bought and paid for by
corporate abortion money, acknowledge the truth earlier this month that at the center of every abortion is, and this is his word, a child. abortion is fundamentally unjust. abortion deprives are brothers and sisters of the equal protection of the laws. abortion turns equals into an equals. and empowers the strong at the expense of the vulnerable. it makes us all less human and less humane along the way. we must confront the violence of abortion and learn to live and thrive together. we are americans, we are up to the challenge. thank you. >> thank you, professor goodwin, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> chairman adler, ranking member jordan, and distinguished members of the house to jerry committee, thank you for inviting me to participate in today's hearing. my name is michelle rasher goodwin, i'm a chancellor professor at the university of california irvine, distinguished lecture at harvard medical school, i write and teach in the areas of
constitutional law, bioethical, althia. my scholarship is published in the hall earlier view, and later yelled law journal among others. and in folks most reluctantly, -- invisible women and the criminalization of motherhood. over the past 15 years, there have been neither 50 bombings of abortions clinics, doctors, nurses and security guards having been killed. there have been threats and mass shootings at our clinics in the united states where they are performing constitutionally protected health care. now supreme court will issue a ruling in dachshund jackson's women's health organization, a case is involved in mississippi abortion ban by 15 weeks of pregnancy. if the supreme court allows mississippi's ban to go into effect it will be endorsing mississippi's solicitation to overturn roe v. wade and planned parenthood be casey. two cases underpinning the constitutional right to abortion in the united states.
for many women of means who can travel and pay for child her, the loss of roe will be devastating. for poor women, particularly poor women of color, the loss will be deadly. this is the coming of the new james crow. this comes as it is being court demonstrated willing necessarily read and ignore its own jurisprudence, when it allows a draconian texas abortion ban sva to go into effect. it abandoned russian after six weeks of pregnancy before which, many women, girls in pregnant capable people, even realize that they are pregnant. ripping a page from the darkest analysts of american history, the texas law includes a bounty provision that allows local residents to sue individuals who aid, abet or assist individuals seeking to terminate a pregnancy. as it shameful predecessor, the fugitive slave act showed, the bounty provision incentivizes private individuals to spy upon, surveillance, interfere with the individual including
fundamental human and constitutional rights as such as bodily autonomy, privacy and freedom. revoking abortion rights is the very subject of justice alito's draft opinion which is disturbing for many reasons including troubling inaccuracies, unsupported insertions, and flawed reasoning such as the notion that constitutional rights do not exist unless explicitly articulated or numerator in the constitution. this novel principle has a doubt on the legitimacy of corporate religious personhood for innovated in 2014 by justice alito himself fit. a case that bestowed religious liberties on for profit corporations that sought to limit contraceptive access in female employees. nowhere in the constitution doesn't mention for profit corporation should have religious identities and liberties, nevertheless, this was practice by justice alito less than a decade ago.
if the draft opinion derives from a neutral view of the law, as justice alito argues, it's technical errors in admission are stunningly apparent. not once does the opinion address rape or incest, even though the new style abortion ban, including the mississippi law, subject of the draft opinion and texas is sb8 law, provides no exception for survivors. sadly, the draft opinion we issues communion facts calling them irrelevant yes facts matter. the one of the most emissions and justice alito's draft is that the constitution establishes that quote, " all persons born or naturalized our citizens of the united states ". the constitution does not mention embryos, fetuses or on the -- unborn children. no stripping away these exceptions and forcing abortions, providers to close their doors, exposes the a logic and crew political nature of these bands which showcase
the dismantling of democratic norms and principles. justice alito writes about blackstone, koch and hail and in fact he incite seize legal authorities. legal authorities who condemned women to the status of property and suggested that women should be subjected to physical punishment and even raped by their husbands. according to blackstone, this was for her protection and benefit. now notably, it was the 13th and 14th amendment in which women, not just men, were free from the bondage's of slavery. it is very clear that the 13th and 14th amendment were intended to apply to black women, not just black men, that they should not be subjected to involuntary servitude. now as i conclude, history reveals the cruelties of racism, sexism and white supremacy and
forced labor reproduction. it is undeniable history reported by this very congress, and should this supreme dismantle roe v. wade, its decision will be the monitored the -- lead to plus c v person, separate legal discourse of matters of reproductive health rights and justice. thank you. >> i thank all the witnesses for their testimony. we will now proceed under the five minute rule with questions and i will recognize myself for five minutes. for nearly a year, abortion care has effectively been banned in your home state of texas, since sb8 went to effect in september of 2021. a lead draft majority opinion and dobbs is deeply troubling with the truth is, there has been a multi -- by a hostile state legislator that has severely impacted abortion care in your state. how is this multi year attack in texas draconian six-week
abortion ban affect the lives of pregnant people in texas today? >> thank you. in texas, currently, we are living in a pro world where people cannot access the portion care they need or they want. despite the fact that the majority of texans support access to abortion care. people have had too -- they are too afraid to look for information for fear of being sued. they are too afraid to call clinics for fear of being sued. they are too afraid to even access resources from abortion friends because they do not know with the repercussions might be for their loved ones and themselves. in addition to that, once they are able to find out the information, their care is delayed. they have to find childcare, accommodations, the ability to travel out of state. they have to make appointments at clinics that are already at capacity serving their own
communities and many times, people are forced either to forego care altogether or the and be forced to carry the pregnancy to term or they are self managing their abortion. abortion is essential health care and it should be available to everyone but in texas, we have been living as if we are already in a post world and it's only going to get worse. if the decision stands over 26 states are poised to bat abortion and the impact will be exponential across the country. texas is home to over 30 million people. 7 million in 2019 were of reproductive age and ability. those people will not be able to access the care they need and that is a travesty. thank you. >> thank you. professor goodwin, as of today, the right to access abortion care is constitutionally protected. if the alito draft opinion is handed down tomorrow, and roe
and casey were overturned, we would face the situation with a quote would've taken a long recognized constitutional right. a person would've had a constitutional right today, gone to bed and woken up tomorrow to find that she no longer has such a. wrightwood is your reaction to such a scenario? >> it is incredibly unusual in our american democracy and the supreme court judas prudence that the supreme court would actually take away the expansion of overwrite, which is fundamental, that is not something that we see in the court to do. instead, with the court has done, has been to reject or calling in laws and shows that enslaved american black people or laws that denied women rights such as to become attorneys or when they were laws that denied people to have credit cards in their own name. the supreme court has struck down such laws and has expanded freedom. the supreme court has never gone back to infect revoke
would have been freedoms that have been well articulated and a stab list in the constitution and also by the supreme court. it is highly unusual. >> dr. robinson, states have been chipping away at the right to abortion for years by restricting access to abortion care. nonetheless, for two generations of americans, roe v. wade has been the legal cornerstone of women's equality. assuring they have access to stay the medical care. if the supreme court were to overturn roe, how would it further exacerbate the current crisis of abortion care acts access and would it mean for the patients and communities you serve? >> as i mentioned in my testimony, access to abortion care is very essential for patients in my community and throughout the u.s.. it would be quite devastating. alabama is already poised to have a complete ban on abortion.
we already have a law on the books. if this is overturned, that means our patients in my community and the surrounding communities who have depended on us for care will no longer have access to the health care that they need. it also means that providers of care to people who are pregnant like me will have their hands tied when it comes to talking to people about options when it comes to their health care. i know that many legislators have talked about writing in restrictions or allowances for the health of the mother but in a situation where we already have where -- roe is already in place, as an obstetrician, i already have difficulties obtaining the permission to proceed with abortion care for patients who are in my hospital for. if this patient is hospitalized and they are hospitalized because they are very ill, we are already required to physicians to sign off on this.
unfortunately, when a person is pregnant and is prior to 20 weeks, 22 weeks, that means if we end that pregnancy, that means to pregnancy would not come to terms. it's hard as it is to hear, that is still called an abortion. it is medical care that some patients need and we have difficulty obtaining the permission to proceed with that right now. >> thank you very much. mr. gates? look >> i yield to mr. johnson. >> thank. you the very subject of this hearing is an outrage. abortion care, the state of topic today is of course an oxymoron. the timing in the obvious purpose of this hearing today is unconscionable and profoundly damaging to the institutions. democrats are engaging in a brazen attempt here to intimidate and bully the justices but the supreme court as they consider a challenge for mississippi's pro-life law. as soon as a draft opinion was leaked, the activists began on the left began to pick it and harass the justices and families in their homes.
democrats have threaten the justices by name, in the press, on the steps of the supreme court in recent reach of the court. in this previous to hearings, we've jurisdiction of the early -- fact that we would be here trying to influence opinion opinion is unprecedented and dangerous to our institution. so much for the constitution, our system of justice, and a critical foundations in the principle of judicial independence. there is no right to abortion in the constitution. period. never was. it's not in the text, it's not a structure, not and it's mean. row invented the right out of thin air. it was highly criticized from the moment it was published. this has imposed a tragically consequential and a court created social policy on the people of our country. as a result, as i said a moment ago, almost 65 million of americans unborn children have perished because of it. because there is no right to abortion the constitution, that question is left to the state of the people to decide. this is long overdue.
after nearly half century, we are very hopeful and grateful that that might finally happen. miss goodwin reminded us just a moment ago, facts math. let's talk about the underlying facts. the facts and the law, the logic, the advancements in medical technology are clearly on the side of life. as susan b anthony-less summarizes it well, quote, the humanity of the unborn child is undeniable now, thanks to advances in modern medicine and science. at six weeks, and unborn child has a beating heart, by 15 weeks, onboard children can stop their thumbs, they have fully formed noses and lips, eyes, and eyebrows. they can feel excruciating pain. these children deserve a voice in the american democratic process. the recent dobbs arguments before the seem corrupt, seeped other -- the u.s. as an outlier to the vast majority of other countries viability standards. he said, quote, when you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the peoples republic of china, and north korea. it is unconscionable to think that the united states is one of only seven countries that
allows for abortions for any reason after 20 weeks. and our nations were certificate, we boldly the clear that it is a self evident truth that human beings are made by their creator and they are dug by him with certain animal rights. first listed as the rice to life for obvious reasons. all three of the democratic's hearsay support and advocate what they say is unrestricted abortion on demand. let me ask dr. robinson, i can go to any of them, you're the medical doctor. based on your website, your testimony today, you clearly support the right to abort a 20-week-old unborn child. i would love for you to explain to us in your medical opinion, at one point and pregnancy, should happen in a portion no longer be an option? >> thank you for a question. as a medical doctor, i understand that every pregnancy is unique and different. i also understand that patients need to have access to care, pregnant people, as the pregnancy to progressives, that might be for various reasons -- >> do you support the right of
a woman who is just seconds away from birthing a healthy child to have an abortion? >> i think that the question you're asking does not realistically reflect abortion care -- >> and that scenario, would you support her right to abort that child. >> i wrote entertain theoretical -- >> it's not a theoretical, ma'am. you are a medical doctor. >> i am a medical doctor, that has never happened in your practice, ma'am. it happens. how about if a child is halfway out of the birth canal? is that abortion permissible then? >> can you repeat your question? >> if a child is halfway delivered out of the birth canal, is it permissible to have an abortion? would you support the right man abortion then? >> i can't even fathom that ever happening. i'm not asking if you can fathom that, would you support that abortion or not? that is unrestricted abortion, right? >> i can't imagine, just like you probably can't imagine what you would do if your daughter was raped, if it hasn't happened, it may be difficult -- >> you're not going to answer the question. how about this one. how does one qualify is human? what makes a human being?
>> what makes a person in human be using, then being born, number. one, birthdays, and then also their individual dna, them having autonomy, then being able to act and think -- >> wait a minute, a newborn child a newborn child lacks immediate capacity to make conscious deliver choices. is infanticide a? >> i think what we are here to talk about is abortion care. what you are describing is something that is already illegal and there are laws in the books for that so i am not a proponent -- >> if dobbs was handed down, the states will be able to make that decision and there are some that will go that far. you need to be aware of what we are talking about today. i'm out of time. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the witness may answer the question. >> i'm sorry? >> i said the gentleman's time is expired, the witness may answer the question. >> in the instance that he is describing, they're already law on the books for that. those are criminal acts and so
i am not a proponent of any additional restrictions on people being able to access abortion care. we just enforcing the laws that are already in the books. >> but if the laws have changed? the >> gentleman's time is expired. >> i am mindful that senator mcconnell has discussed publicly of the concept of prohibiting abortion in every case in every state showed the court allow that to occur. really what we are talking about is the potential of politicians making decisions, taking the decisions away from individuals and really criminalizing health care for women. you have given goodin interesting testimony but my question really goes to the
other potential impacts of what is being discussed. professor goodwin, what's impact would such a decision, if the draft were to be with become the courts decision, what impact would that have lawn in vitro fertilization or contraception in your view? with that become criminalized as well? >> it certainly could. i want to speak to two impacts. the first that we have to speak to his maternal mortality. the united states ranks 55th in the world in terms of maternal mortality. it ranks amongst saudi arabia, bosnia and russia the stoning and lashing of women but more specifically to your question, yes, we could see in fact the dismantling of contraception access, access to being able to have iuds, access to plan b
which is used after rape. >> if i may with you on that, in the draft opinion, justice alito really says there is no privacy right and also there is no deeply rooted in this nation's history in tradition right to abortion. i look at the constitution. it does not mention women and certainly the right of gay people to marry or for people of different races to marry is not deeply rooted in the nation's history. do you think that by extension that draft opinion could be used to take other rights away? >> it certainly could be in it sends a very strong signal to states that are already inclined to do that or stay
lawmakers and governors have already indicated their interest in order to impose civil punishments, criminal punishments and begin stripping away rights that we have seen emerge over time. we have already seen this in texas with regard to the governor pushing forward for an executive order that would essentially punish parents who are providing affirmative care to their children who are trans. game marriage is at stake, the ability to adopt if you were gay is at stake, interracial marriage is at stake. it only takes one local county clerk to say i disagree. >> let me go to some of the other issues. i have long been a proponent of preserving privacy rights of americans and i even am a founder of the bipartisan fourth amendment caucus which i chair. i am thinking about some of the other implications of the draft
decision should that happen. if roe is overturned, it seems that there is a risk that personal data could be more or less weaponized against women seeking basic health care. the media is full of stories, news stories, identify new risks to women's data privacy in a post row world. for example, here is a headline sample for the washington post. law enforcement may fully on the ship's data collection tools on abortion or without roe will data become a company headache and user nightmare. what police could find out about your legal abortion fox points out that period and data privacy in the pro post roe v. wade climate could actually be utilized to prosecute women.
how could information gathered by such lacks, dr. robertson, we used to target women who seek reproductive care and states but laws that criminalize care and could these track location for example to plan parenthood and the weaponized against clinics? you have to turn on your mic. >> i apologize. it's hard to imagine how these apps that people are using in order to track their menstrual cycles and try to control their fertility, how this will be used against people in a post roe world. i cannot imagine us going back to the day where abortion acts would not be available. that is just difficult for me to fathom at this time. >> my time is expired, gentleman. i yield back. >> mr. shabbat? >> thank you, mister chairman. miss chairman, the american people are facing real issues that need real solutions. yesterday, gas prices hit an all-time high for the eighth
day in a row. they are actually over $4 a gallon in all 50 states now. they are $4.39 back in my district in cincinnati. i paid $5.19 here in d.c. when i flew up monday at a gas station right outside of washington, d.c.. i understand out in california there are over $6 a gallon now and that is the equivalent of a massively regressive tax hike. it is going to cost the american people thousands of dollars per year. that is just in the price of gas. gas prices impact every other aspect of the economy, which means higher prices for everything and perhaps even more concerning are the supply chain issues that continue to plague our nation. now young families cannot even find baby formula to feed their newborn children. these shortages in the resulting price hikes have gone far beyond just being an inconvenience. they have become a desperate
reality to american families all across the country. make no mistake, these are real problems. problems that the biden administration policies have caused and for which seemingly they have no workable solutions. instead of working towards solutions to solve these in so many other problems that are inadvertently impacting so many americans, this committee is once again spending valuable time debating a hypothetical issue. a supreme court case which has not even come out now. rather than to try to solve real problems and come up with real solutions. this hearing is yet another attempt to distract the american people from the failures of the biden administration to address the problems they face right now, today, finds that scaring people with a hypothetical case. concerns that might happen down the road in the future. today, it's a hypothetical supreme court decision, which
has not even been rendered yet but which was illegally leaked. it is pretty clear that the leaked opinion is being used to blatantly intimidate the united states supreme court. we have never had a draft supreme court opinion leaked like this before, at least not to my knowledge. for good reason, the court relies on the good faith of its members to work through complex legal questions, sharing draft opinion so they can respond to each other's concerns. through that process, opinions can evolve and develop and approve and sometimes change. in the, and the american people get a better understanding and a reason result, even when they may not ultimately agree with the outcome. obviously this cauldron abortion, this country has been in jim attic disagreement for sometime now. elise that the weights word for
the last 233 years up until now. one has to wonder how the court will even function going forward. will the justices be able to trust one another? will they be able to overcome this historic breach and resume anything close to normal operations? or is the court, much like congress, now condemned to hyperpartisan ship. this dangerous unprecedented situation is what we should be discussing at this hearing. after, all this committee has oversight over the supreme court and we are charged with making sure that it functions properly. instead, this committee is feeding the fire there may ultimately consume the united states supreme court's independence in that is not a good day for america. miss foster, as well as being a strong pro-life advocate, you are also an attorney. i'd like to ask, can you think of another example that a breach like this certainly of this magnitude, in the history of the supreme court, where a
draft opinion has illegally leaked to the media and how damaging do you view such a breach out to the functionality and reputation of the court? >> i cannot think of one and that is because there has not been one law. even this hearing today was, it really threatens the integrity of the court. today, as well as speculation of what the court may do, not what it has done, the intended with brings chaos and pressure to the recent deliberations of the court as they attempted to determine the outcome of the case. it is simply wrong. >> i know you and many pro-life advocates would like this to me no more abortions in the country but in reality, what's actually happens? >> what happens if? >> if this decision comes out and roe were overturned by the supreme court. >> if it is overturned, the issue returns to the state. the federalization of abortion
lance bass not on constitutional principles but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the roe court. this dobbs opinion, should this be the final opinion, it would reverse that damage and return the issue to the people in our elected representatives. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> the gentleman yields back. >> as one of the most important hearings in my lifetime, dealing with the question of the survival of the constitution. first of all, let me acknowledge the very weak destruction of a leak that has absolutely no concern of a leak where a duly constituted bob such a supreme court would be permitted by doing its work. there is no question that the republicans want a total nationwide ban on abortion.
that is no exceptions. in sets no exception for rape. intolerable, human posture they put american. i think today i come claiming for women, freedom, justice, equity, equality and an absolute ban on politicians telling women what to do with their body. the cdc found in 2020, than non hispanic black women suffer 55.3% death. a total of 9.9 times the rate of non hispanic white women. as loving as pregnancy can be, for those choosing, it can also mean death to women who have been to the african american and other minorities. let me ask questions to dr. goodwin first. professor goodwin.
as it relates to constitutional rights. we heard the question that abortion is not in the constitution. for those who understand that the document is a living document that you assess the question of the idea of ignoring the first amendment because church services are not specifically mentioned or synagogue services are not mentioned or ignoring the fourth amendment. professor, could you analyze the importance of recognizing that roe v. wade is president in the ninth amendment dealing with privacy? >> thank you very much for that question. first of all, over 233 years of the supreme court existence, the supreme court has fashioned a right because the ninth amendment provides for. that is to say that not all rights are explicitly
enumerated in the constitution that the supreme court has the discretion. to speak to matters that are not explicitly leaning needed to the drafters of the constitution anticipated that they had not thought of all matters that would be to america as it develops as if there would be ninth amendment that would allow for the court to be able to further interpret as society emerged. at the time in which the constitution was drafted, we did not have trains, we did not have planes, we did not have cars, we had no electric cars, we had none of the machineries of war that we currently have. as we look at other amendments to form a second amendment perspective, there are certain artillery that we have today that is not anticipated at the time of the second amendment drafting into the point that you made, when the first amendment was drafted as well, there were certain articulations that we appreciate today that were not
explicitly delineated within the context of the constitution. it is also worth noting that the constitution says. the constitution says that people who are people in the united states are people that are born. it makes no mention of embryos or fetuses. it's also worth noting with the 13th amendment says in the 14th amendment. if we appreciate that member of congress were free, not only black men, but also black within, it said that there shall be no involuntary servitude. it explicitly also mentions that black people shall have, and this includes women, liberty and freedom. this is incredibly important. >> thank you. you live under the horrors of the texas sb8. thank you for your father's life and legacy. tell me what it means to have a meaning that women can be
exposed and a bounty can be given to them under the texas awe in that law spreading across america along with an absolute ban on abortion? mid arrambide, are you there? >> thank you for that question. since sb8 went to effect, people have been terrified because extremists have been essentially deputized as bounty hunters to come after people that they think might have been aiding, abetting or providing abortion care and that has had a chilling effect for people trying to access abortion care. people cannot exercise their constitutional right to have abortions and that is not okay and it's about to spread throughout the country if this decision goes into effect. it is terrifying. >> the young lady's time has expired. >> you back. >> thank you, mister chairman and thank you to the witnesses here today. miss foster, we have heard a great deal about it is my body,
it is my choice. the same people that said that seem to feel like if it comes to a vaccination, it is not your body, and it is not your choice. we get to tell you whether you have vaccinations or not regardless of what the risks are the. do you believe people have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies? >> i believe in protecting every human being, no matter who they are, where they are. and the other aspect about them. whatever you call that is what i am for and that absolutely include human beings in the womb. >> it's interesting, you are familiar with the law, state and federal law does not recognize a child's being
mature enough to enter in legally binding contracts so normally there is a parent that is required to make decisions in the best interest of the child body. correct? >> correct. yes. >> you obviously have been working in pro-life movement for a long time. do you think it's an appropriate presumption that a parent will choose to do what is in the best interest of a baby's own body since they cannot make the choice for themselves? >> absolutely. we should be protecting every human being. >> do you believe there should be a presumption that a parent will make a decision for the best interest of the child's body?
>> yes. >> we have seen lots of problems. we have heard testimony about the mental jurist of carrying a child and of course i am sure you are aware of what is called postpartum depression. some have it a very severely and i am wondering if a mother is suffering severe depression as a result of having a child that she is not mentally and physically able to take care of. do you believe a mother should have a right to drown a child, to get rid of a child because the mental stress and duress and problems that the mother is having? >> of course not. that would be horrifying and that is why we have safe haven laws to provide support and
resources and an outlet for women in difficult situations. >> from what you have said already, you seem to feel like the child's body which does belong to the child but relies on the parents decision for the child's well-being, correct? >> i trust that people are looking out for the best interest of all human beings. >> are you familiar with premature babies? >> of course. yes. >> do you find that it seems they have an inherent desire to live. >> absolutely. when you visit the nicu, you see them fighting for their ability to live. >> that is a good term, fighting for their ability to live. from our own daughter that was
born 8 to 10 weeks prematurely, we were sent to a other level of icu because they had a higher survival rate. when i got, their my wife had to stay at the hospital where she had been and encouraged me to go do anything i could. i began to see why the survival rate was so high there because the doctor said you gotta sit down right here. that baby cannot see you properly but she knows your voice. you stroke her little face, her hands. she grabbed the end of my finger and i could not move for eight hours because as the doctor said, she is drawing strength, drawing lie from you. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> that is the role of a parent. thank you for being here. >> mr. cohen?
>> thank you, mister chair. miss foster, let me ask you a question. are you in favor of outlying abortion in all 50 states? >> i believe in protecting every herman person no matter who or where they are so whatever you call that is what i am for. >> you are in favor of allowing abortion in all 50 states? do you think that should be done by the federal government for protecting all those individuals? >> i do not think that we have gotten to that point necessarily. we voted on the women's health protection act and so we have seen the converse. >> if senator mcconnell was able to go forward and have a bill to outlaw abortion federally, which is not prohibited from the congress from doing such, would you be in favor of congress prohibiting abortion in all 50 states? >> i would be in favor of protecting every human being a matter where they are. >> what if a person was impregnated by rape, incest or incest? would you be in favor of an
abortion then or so against abortion? >> i would say that every human being is inherently valuable. >> you said that many times. basically what you are saying is you are against an exception for rape and incest. somebody is raped, you are saying they would have to bear that child because they consider that fetus a human being? that child would be brought into this world even though the woman was forced into sex by possibly and probably somebody who she had no affinity towards whatsoever. i find that abhorrent to think that is where we are and many states are requiring and concerned about forcing young people to wear masks to protect -- which protects others, not them, but they want them to bear children. they want to force them to bear children even if they are raped, even if they had sex or raped by a family member, which is incest, which can be problems geologically if they have the child and how the child developed fetus,. look this is what we got.
we have got an effort to outlaw abortion in all 50 states and to do it by congressional law, if possible, and if the senate in the house become republican, that will happen. it will be outlawed here in all 50 states. not just mississippi, not just louisiana, not just arkansas and texas and oklahoma and all those other red states, everywhere. that is pre-roe v. wade. i will tell you what happened pro roe v. wade. i was only about 14 or 15 years old. i live in california. i had a relative who lived in new york and she became pregnant. she was not ready to have a family. she made that decision, the decision she made which she can afford because she had wealthy parents and wealthy family, was
to fly from new york to california and then to go down to mexico and get an abortion. it turned out to be safe and fine and good but the only reason she could do it is because she had money and the resources to do it. people in small rural areas in the south and other places without wealth, could not afford it. they had to go to back alley abortionists and sometimes lose their life because it was not legal. they had to possibly raise a lot of money to get somewhere because they did not have the money to get to california and go to mexico, only the wealthy did and we will have abortion by financial status if this happens. it will happen in mexico or we will happen in the back alley. if you have enough money, you will probably find somebody that could do it. in memphis, you will have to go to illinois, which is also expensive and time consuming and you do not know what the laws will be in tennessee whether they follow texas and
people put a bounty on people's heads and finance folks to get an abortion. it is wrong what happened in the country in the 60s one portion was illegal and the wealthy could afford it but the non wealthy could not. it is wrong to try to protect and care about peoples rights to wear a mask or not wear a mask but not the right to have and they are a child or not and have been a family, even if you might be 12 or 13 years old. now abortion is not mentioned in the constitution but fetus is not mentioned in the constitution either. the constitution does not say anything about when life starts. that is something the courts have to decide because it's not mentioned in the constitution. for the courts to absolve themselves of it and get away from it is wrong the. three justices said roe is set in law, roe is the law, it is titled. it was not, i some on the other side, terrible decision we just terribly wrong.
it was right said kavanaugh, it was right said baird, it is right then, and it is right now. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank, you mister chairman. professor goodwin, is a 20-week pregnancy of an unborn child a human being under the constitution? >> under the constitution in the 14th amendment, it recognizes borne individuals outfitting citizens of the united states. >> born. is it your testimony that constitutionally, prior to the term born being exercised, the unborn have no rights and they are not human beings? >> according to the constitution -- >> no, no. >> citizens of the united states and according to -- >> i am asking for the
conclusion as a constitutional scholar. the unborn prior to their delivery are not persons under the constitution. the constitution itself or the 14th amendment which specifically says his board. is that your testimony? >> that is what the constitution says and that is what this congress from the fourth and fifth amendment. >> thank you, professor. miss foster, in your opinion, is a child sucking it's from knowing if it's left or right handed free, able to feel pain but not yet delivered from the mother, does that child, to you, represent a human being? >> to me and to every embryology textbook out there, yes. they are not human, what are they? it does not mean court will determine reality. the reality of the human life is that child is a human being. >> under existing law, if someone were to kill that 22,
23, 24-week gestation pregnancy, is that a crime in virtually every state including under federal law? >> virtually every state, thanks to roe v. wade, and planned parenthood, abortion can be -- >> no, no, i said let's say the father of a child kills that child and not the mother decision if an outsider kills the unborn. is it a crime not just battery but a crime in federal law and most dates? >> yes, that is a crime in virtually every state. four if you kill the unborn, you've killed a human being under state law even though abortion is legal. let's just go through, since we're on the subject of law for a moment, miss foster. behind me, under ufc, 5:15 07, is it a --
occupied by a judge, a jury, with the intent influence the decision it certainly is. . also a crime? >> yes. behind me, here's a picture they're using a megaphone in front of justice alito's help. they're clearly trying to influence it. is that a crime? >> it is. under 18 usc, 15 07, people are committing crimes. why is it we're not hearing it denounced by the pro-choice movement who they say that they respect this decision as long as it goes their way. >> it fits the narrative. the leaker and tended to bring chaos and public pressure into the dobbs case. this hearing shows that they succeeded, those photos
demonstrate that -- responding to that leak as planned. >> these protests are in front of justice barrett, justice kavanaugh, justice alito. they don't appear to be having the opposite and anyway trying to influence the pro-choice, if you, all members of the court. is that correct? there's no similar intimidation going on? >> that is correct. >> i wanted to hear quote and hear comment on it. when someone says that it is reprehensible, stay away from homes and families and elected officials and members of the court you can express yourself, exercise your first amendment rights, but to go after them in their homes, to do anything of a threatening nature certainly anything violent is absolutely responsible. would you agree with that? >> i certainly would. >> senator dick durbin agrees with that. he's been one of the lone voices willing to denounce it.
i have not heard it denounced even by one member on this day us on the other side of the aisle. miss foster, a senior correspondent for vox.com, a former federal judge clerk tweeted the following, seriously, shout out to whoever the hero was within the supreme court who said, f bomb, using a term, it's, let's burn the place down. is that a crime in your estimation? >> the time of the gentleman expired. please answer from the witness. >> absolutely. >> thank you miss german, yield back. >>. the diamond goes back, mr. johnson. >> thank you. professor goodwin, georgia has a six-week ban on abortions. it's also a state that is the most dangerous state in the nation for pregnant women.
approximately half of the counties in georgia have no ob positions, no ob/gyn, no family physician providing upset trickle care. no midwives. half of the state. furthermore, hospital labor and delivery units have been closing across georgia for the last several decades. and 2015, only 46 out of 159 counties had such units. professor goodwin, isn't it ironic that states like georgia want to for us women to remain pregnant but seem unwilling to help women stay alive during pregnancy? >> that's right, it's one of the most egregious aspects of what we see today in our country. the states that have been most
active in -- antiabortion bans, abortion, bands have been received at the higher rates of maternal mortality. this proportionately most affected has been black women. it's really been a death sentence for them. for that reason, if nothing, more it's important that this hearing is being held. there's been so little attention to the fact that black women have suffered in grave and inhumane ways and those states with abortion ban. >> thank you, doctor robertson, is it fair to say that there is a link between abortion access and maternal health? >> yes, that is fair to say. there's a supporting documentation that shows that without access to abortion care that the maternal mortality rate will continue to rise. i am glad that you pointed out the fact that many states have
decreased access to midwifery kara, decreased access to health care resources. labor delivery units that are closing down. people having to travel farther and farther to access maternity care. particularly in alabama. we also criminalize women who do not present for maternity care. it is considered a form of neglect. in a community when you don't have access to those resources and you cannot travel to meet the physician, it is not fair to punish those women, but then to try to force them to carry pregnancies to term when they don't have the resources to support that. >> thank you, miss foster, you've seemed reticent to answer the question whether or not you were in favor of a federal ban on abortions passed by the congress. i've looked at your twitter account. you do have a twitter account, right? >> correct?
>> correct. correct >> on may 2nd of the day that the decision was leaked about the decision to overturn roe v. wade, you posted a audio message on your twitter account. did you not? >> yes. >> you put forward the question, quote, what's does a post row america look like? what comes after roe, and quote. >> correct. >> you answered your own question by saying, quote, we never really wanted rose reversal to make abortion a state issue, where some states protect life and other states continue to kill and dismember, in quote, that's what you said, right? >> --
>> you also said that, quote, after roe, we don't want more victims, we want abortion abolition, and quote,. >> that is correct, i believe in protecting every human being to matter what they are. >> you also said that the end goal is to the united states supreme court to declare that abortion was against the constitution. i believe it was former president clinton who called for -- >> that's what you said. that's what you said. >> absolutely, yeah. >> you are our republican who supports republicans. they called you as a witness. that is the republican plan for women in america to not have a right to an abortion, whether or not it be in the first, second, or in 1% of those cases that happen in the beyond the
20th week. you don't want women to have that right for any reason one so ever, to protect or save the life of the mother, or to, and the cases of rape and incest -- >> a more humane and more just america would provide protection -- >> the time of the gentleman has expired, mr. buck. >> miss foster, and want to direct my questions to you. when i'm wondering, how will america be judged by future generations, future societies? when we learn about the great empires and cultures and school and in world history, we think of the ancient greek and roman 's, great britain, the mongols, the man's, the various chinese dynasties. we study the art and architecture. we celebrate a science, technical, medical advancements of the people. we marvel at the military power of the great empires. there seems like a great
cultures all have an asterisk. the greeks and romans had slaves. the millions and the chen dynasty performed human sacrifice as a, to appease their gods. when americas evaluated in the future, certainly scholars will see this as an exceptional nation. a country with great scientific and technological advances, beautiful art, and architecture, the most powerful military in the world, tremendous advancements exhilarates, for minorities, great universities, amazing agricultural accomplishment, space travel, energy production. what will be asked right before america? they do enough to help those with physical have kneecaps, and mental handicaps, mental diseases? do we provide a pathway to prosperity for the poor? how did we address homelessness and crime? what do we do for the most vulnerable in our society, for those who don't have a voice, can't vote, and don't have an
advocate? we know for example that an unborn baby has a heartbeat at six weeks. the valves pain receptors at seven weeks. has arms, legs, figures and, toes at ten weeks. can kick and will jump if startled at ten weeks. will respond to touch throughout almost the entire body at 13 to 14 weeks. and has fully developed heart at 15 weeks. miss posture, i will future generations and future cultures judge how he treated the most vulnerable in our society? >> i'm ashamed to think of it. i am hopeful that the eventual dobbs decision will be the first step in the right direction towards some kind of reckoning. >> i appreciate your answer. i think we could go into more detail quite frankly. those that don't have a voice, those that don't have political power are often ignored.
when we are judged, i think, we will be examined for how we treated the unborn in this country. not the unborn that were caused by rape or incest. but millions on millions since 1973 that have been killed as a result of abortion policies in this country. millions far exceed the historical accounts of other cultures. i think we will be judged harshly for how we treated the most vulnerable. how we treated folks who didn't have political power. i think it's unfortunate. i think it's unfortunate we can't just for a moment to reflect on those that need our protection. any last comments before my time runs out? >> absolutely.
it may not appear that way from the other side of the aisle here, but this really is a unifying issue for most americans. 51%, according to a 2021 poll, believe that abortion should be either illegal and all circumstances, or illegal and all but the rare circumstances. less than a third believed that abortion should be legal under all circumstances. most americans agree. in fact, as a proud member of the board of democrats for life of america as well, i know that in fact, a third of democrats call themselves pro life. the numbers swings more and more pro-life the more radical bills are put forward. by the other side of the aisle. when we see the new york reproductive health act, we see democrats more and more calling themselves pro-life. because they look at that kind of bill, they say, if that's approach isis, i want no part of it.
we welcome that. we welcome them into the pro-life side. i see that there's so much hope for an america that pursues more humane solutions are all human beings. >> other than china, north korea, some of those countries, how do we compare to countries in other parts of the world? >> we have among the most radical abortion policy in the world. our company is canada, china, and north korea. of course, canada does not have a national law in the subject at all. we are dramatically more radical than any country in europe for example to which we so often compare selves. our abortion laws so far beyond what's other countries have chosen through their elected officials and with the american people which is. and what we allow our elected officials to do as they represent us. >> -- >> expired, mr. deutch,.
>> thank you, mister chairman. i want to talk about three issues that my colleagues on the other side the aisle have brought up. political power, intimidation, and real problem. i want to start by asking miss goodwin, is there any amount of political power that a 12 year old could wage to stop her from being raped by a relative? >> now. there isn't. >> miss goodwin, is there any amount of political power a young woman walking down the street, raped on the street, violently, and impregnated, is there any political power that women has that she can wheel to prevent that pregnancy from happening? >> no. >> and finally, dr. robinson,
is there any amount of political power that a woman who comes to see you who has desperately wanted to get pregnant only to learn that the problem with her pregnancy and the development of the fetus may mean either that the fetus will be borne with perhaps organs developed outside of the body. or that her life may be at risk for delivering that child or both? is there a mounted political power that that woman who so desperately wanting to be pregnant and finds itself in a situation -- is there political power that could prevent that from happening? >> absolutely not. >> this is about power. let me just ask you.
it's the power for women to be able to make these decisions that are protected by the constitution. let me ask. i'm sorry, is it arrambide? arrambide, so sorry. let me ask you about intimidation. tell me about the intimidation that your father felt doing his job helping women? >> sure, my father provided abortions in the 70s, 80s, and 90. one of the things that was prevalent at the time was the wanted dead abortion providers poster. he was a target of a lot of harassment and terrorism. he wore a kevlar vest to work every day. we lived in gated communities. he had an fbi agent assigned to him. he kept this pretty under wraps
so i wouldn't be exposed to it. when i went to college, i was called by someone that was harassing me and trying to get his home address. despite the fact he had the same office for years. the fbi agent was sure he was going to target my father. that's what he lived with. he did his work, he provided care for so many texans across central and south texas. because he was a hero. he provided health care that they so desperately needed and wanted. there are so many women and families who are grateful for that. doctor david gun who was gunned down outside of an inversion clinic where he worked during that work. dr. barnett's slap ian who was shot by a sniper through his kitchen window because of the work that he did. the two receptionists who were killed, the security guard who was killed. these aren't theoretical
conversations about intimidation. there are people whose jobs have been to help women take action that's been protected by the constitution who are dead. because of it. that is intimidation. i want to finish with this. real problems, it is true, the price of gas is a real problem. it is. in my community and so many others. the shortage of baby food is a real problem here, baby formula. dr. robinson, let me let you finish. what is the real problem a woman faces when we slam the door on them and tell them, rape, incest, they may die in pregnancy, none of that matters anymore, what's that real problem? >> thank you.
first of all, i just wanted to mention, when you talk about the harassment, i thank you for highlighting. that when they put the pictures up there, i actually thought those were pictures outside of my office. that's the harassment that abortion providers in that our patients face on a daily basis. it's not nearly as appalling to the other side when it's happening to us. when you talk about what's the real problems that people face, you know, the turn away study, it clearly highlights the implications of people not being able to access abortion care. many of these people are going to fall into poverty. they have difficulty caring for their children that they already have. that's with the real problem is. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. johnson. >> thank you mister jet -- i for the record by sarah paso journey, legal fellow with the mini center for legal and judicial studies at the heritage foundation. >> without objection. >> thank you. dr. robinson, i ask you earlier
how one qualifies as being fully human. you responded by saying that no one becomes a human, or someone does become a human at the moment of birth. i found that absolutely stunning since you are not a political activist or an advocate. but you present yourself in purport to be a medical doctor. your answers deny the plain truth of science and medical technology that anyone can see and understand even if they don't have a medical degree. obviously, i don't need to cite volumes of medical journals to prove the fact that unborn child is a human being. as a live train institute summarizes, but quote, from the early stages of development, the unborn artist, ain't living, and whole human beings. they are not mere parts of larger human beings, like skin cells are, but whole human entities capable of directing their own internal growth and development. this is not just a lid religious view. but a matter of the science of embryology. and it's 1859 report on criminal abortion, the american medical association
acknowledged that, quote, the independent and actual existence of a child before birth is a living being was a scientific proof, nothing has changed is that time. for more than 102 years, doctors have known that light begins at conception. a 1981 report to the united states senate quo states, quote, physicians and scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being and of being that is alive is a member of the human species. there is overwhelming agreement on this point and countless biological -- there's a picture up here, this is not a mere clump of cells. this is not an animal or some unknown species. ma'am, that is a human being. all of you here are confusing human value with human function. you're defying personhood by what somebody does, rather than what they are. scott gosar surprises it this way. although human beings differently with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because
they share a common human nature. humans have value simply because they are human. if you deny this, it's difficult to say why objective human rights should apply to anyone. as i noted earlier, it is a self evident truth that all human beings are made by their creator and endowed by him assert and unenviable rights. the first listed and our declaration is the right to life. it is a medical doctor here wants to deny the facts and reality, let me ask the abortion advocate, miss arrambide, to answer the questions on the subject. ma'am, you testified you are unapologetic and seeking understated abortion access. i'm wondering, i would point is it's not okay to abort a child? what age of gestation? i trust all people to determine what they can and can't do with their bodies full stop. i also believe that human rights, including access to the
medical care that they need within their communities, it's something that should be afforded everyone. you support late term abortion? >> i support all people -- >> that means late term abortion, do you support partial term abortion? in other words, the child's have delivered, and then the woman says, my right, i want to take that one out. do you support that? >> i trust people to make decisions about their body. >> wow, okay. one about, so, abortion should be allowed then, by your definition, for any reason, for any purpose, at any stage? >> i trust people to make decisions about their body, when relevant, i think they need to consult their medical practitioners and not congress. >> let me ask you this question. if it is not lawful and morally acceptable take the life of a ten year old child, you know don't agree with, that that would be wrong, correct? >> i believe that is. wrong two year old child, the same thing, we would all agree
that's wrong. >> what is the principal distinction between the human being that is two years old or nine months old, or one week old, or an hour old and one that is eight inches further up the birth canal in the -- what's the difference? my ziplock in the latter case or not the former case? >> i trust people to determine what they do to do with her own body. full stop. >> post up indeed. that describes right there what this is about. there is a legal issue here, underneath that is a moral issue. it is about reality. it is about science. the advancement on medical technology. you're talking about unborn children. your full stop is that you will support the termination that child at any time. that is frightening. that is why this decision should be turned to the popular with the people, and hopefully they will protect the sanctity of every single human life and live up to the standards of our declaration of independence. i yield back. >> chairman yields back. miss bass? >> thank you mister chair for
holding this hearing. professor goodwin, i know that some scholars including yourself have pointed out that some of the states most eager to ban abortion are those with a history of jim crow and voter suppression. can you speak to this relationship and what this could mean for other civil rights and liberties, including for people who live in blue states, such as myself, california. >> historically, during the period of slavery, we had confederate slaves, -- since we banned abortion that denied african americans fundamental human rights this congress provided those rights through the 13th amendment, 14th amendment, -- the united states supreme court, we've seen the dismantling of those rights through voter suppression. historically, we've seen african american women suffer an inordinate ways. that suffering continues in the state of mississippi the subject of the dobbs opinion,
80% of cardiac deaths in that state during pregnancy are black women. in the state of mississippi, black women are 118 times more likely to die by terminating a pregnancy that i have -- in those states we still see disparities in terms of -- these histories are something that are undeniable and that face us in a face of a new james crow. a system that slavery and through jim crow has resulted in the unequal treatment of black women. i thank you for the question. >> sure, just along those lines. what would you think if the roe decision is overturned, which is where we believe it's going. how do you think that relates our puts in jeopardy other civil rights? and liberties? >> other severe lights and liberties are at stake even though in the week draft opinion, justice alito
suggested there are some guardrails around those, such as contraceptive access. that's actually hard to credit and will be more illusory since justice alito himself offered the opinion which itself sought to dismantle part of the affordable care act condition that can companies would provide comprehensive contraceptive care to their employees. hobby lobby provided an exception in that case for companies that identify themselves as having religious rights. something that it never existed before justice alito's opinion. so, we see lgbtq equality on the line, contraceptive axis on the line, including iuds, which are not aboard informations, but that are popular forms of contraception. there are already state lawmakers that are saying they're seeking to do away with those fundamental rights associated with contraception. next, we'll see also sex education targeted as well by these individuals and these legislatures. >> thank you, incredible plays
we find ourselves and now. miss arrambide, one, i apologize for the line of questioning you just experienced by my colleague on the other side of the aisle. i would like to ask you your opinion, justice coney barrett suggested that because adoption exists, there really is no need for abortion. i want to know what you thought of that statement. i also want to know it professor goodwin states think so that state. >> i don't believe adoption is an alternative to an abortion it's an alternative to after giving birth, giving the child up for adoption or keeping the child. it's not an alternative to abortion. >> i ask you that question especially because i heard your testimony. about where you are in your life at that time. sure. that's how i wanted you to think about it, from that perspective. listening to you are in very
practical testimony. >> sure, if at 25 i had been forced to carry a pregnancy to term, i would not have survived. i have no doubt that i would not be alive today. i would not have been allowed to continue, or to start my medical treatment for my mental health issues, i wouldn't have been alive to have two pregnancies, two healthy pregnancies, despite how difficult those protests pregnancies were. i wouldn't be the mother that i am today, and have the two wonderful children that are my whole world. -- >> do you say that because of your mental health status at the time that you are not well? >> absolutely, my mental health status, i wasn't able to get up out of my bed. i wasn't able to walk a dog, take a shower. that happened for months and months at a time. as someone that's gone through to complete pregnancies and carry two pregnancies to term, who had placenta preview, who had a breach birth, an emergency c-section, that could've taken the life of my
child or myself, i absolutely on unequivocally believe that if i had been forced to carry a pregnancy to term when i was 25, i would not have survived. not only because of my mental health, but because pregnancy is more dangerous. and when you don't want to be pregnant, you don't want to continue the pregnancy, there are so many things that can affect you and cannot have a good outcome. yes, i believe that i am so lucky that i was able to access the abortion care i needed within my community without many obstacles. i wish that for anyone who is pregnant and doesn't want to be -- >> the time of the -- >> mister chairman -- thank you mister chairman, hang on, this is an important issue for the justice airy committee. even though this issue i would say a life and death issue, we'll talk about judiciary
implications. i want to talk to professor goodwin a little bit. what happened if casey and roe overturn? can you still have abortion? >> casey row and are overturned, it means that there will be laws that are triggers throughout the united states where in some states there will not be access to abortion because it will be criminally punished. in some other states, there will be access to abortion. people who will -- have to travel if they can to get to those states where they can be able to terminate their pregnancies. >> they are still going to be states will have decide, a situation, we'll have some more liberal states, some more conservative states, but ultimately, the states really making those decisions at the state level which which is how we are funded as country by the states -- by making decisions. the court is going to make a decision that our constitutional decisions. who do you think should make a
final decision on something where it is your constitutional rights? which entity at our federal level? >> to be clear, there was actual a civil war about fundamental rights in the united states on that were not -- carry on whatever they wanted to do. that was the very point of the several war. the lives of black people were actually at stake. so, if you could then repeat your question, i thought -- >> what is the decision, we have a constitutional amendment, right, of the states decide to do that. the more you know, we can fight war, but then ultimately,, which power, which branch of our federal government has an ultimate decision to decide what is protected by our constitution? which branch? >> well, the supreme court is this -- >> so the supreme court? -- the valley that supreme court has the authority to roll? --
do you think that is really the decision of supreme court? we're giving that authority, or do you believe that every time we don't like, we should start packing the court? what do you think it will lead to. you don't like decisions, i might only decision, so why is going to create our country, if every time that we do not like something, sound decision, we start -- do you think it's dangerous? with all due respect, so i can answer your question -- >> yes, please. >> i would also say it would be the congress has played an important role in american law. it was this congress for example that ratified the 13th amendment, abolishing slavery. it was the congress that ratified and draft to the 14th amendment which provided citizenship and equal protection under law in due process to people who were then freed from human enslavement. it was this congress that then struck down jim crow laws in
the states that basically tethered black people to second class citizenship through thousands of laws that denied them significant personhood. it was this congress through the 1964 civil rights act, the 1965 voting rights act, -- >> i completely agree with you. we have a processes, supreme court rulings, and we have constitutional amendments, right? that we ratified by the state. do you think this is still a valid processes? do you support that this is the valid process of our constitutional republic? >> thank you so much for that question. that is the process of this republic -- it has been important that the supreme and this congress has stepped in when there have been states that have wanted to import human enslavement, kidnap, and trafficking of african americans. it has been this congress that has played a pivotal role -- >> it has to go through the constitutional amendment. do you think congress should be exercising pressure by packing
the court, putting pressure on the judges and activists on the court. do you think it's important to have a strength of that institution, to hold us to a institutional republic? do you believe that the political pressure on the court is a good idea, regardless what it, is it can come from both sides. >> it's a very important question they ask about these institutions being able to operate independently. that is critically important. such as this hearing today, which is directly connected to urgent health care matters in the united states. so, i'm glad that you and your colleagues are hosting this particular hearing. -- >> i appreciate it. i cope we can have a constructive conversation. we have a separation about -- the hold down institutions, to not politicize the court, i yield back. >> mr. cicilline,? >> think you --
abortion's health care, plain and simple, person's decision on whether become a parent is one of the most important that they can make in their life. a woman's decision whether not to have an abortion should be hers alone, period. across america, every -- has been dismantled by politicians, usually, man pushing false narratives to control women's bodies. their ultimate goal is a national ban on abortion in america. the world are pushing for is deeply terrified. a world without any abortion evaporates or incest. aware where women are criminals not only for getting an abortion, but potentially for miscarriage, ivf treatment. a worldwide health care providers are hunted down and arrested. and the vigilantes that on tomorrow ordered. it's incredible to me, this fundamental constitutional right, and try and more than 50 years ago, is again up for debate. it's unbelievable that we're even having this debate, after
re-seen a disastrous effects when women lose access to abortion care. thank you to our witnesses for coming forth today, to explain why access to abortion services is so vital. something you shouldn't have to do. apparently, it still needs to be done. with that, i toronto couple of questions. first, professor goodwin, can you discuss, when one considers that miscarriage happens in ten to 15% of known pregnancies, can you discuss that if states criminalize abortions, whether you have concerns that people may be investigated or prosecuted for miscarriages. maybe speak more broadly about the dangers that exist from criminalizing pregnancy across america, how the courts have begun to do that? >> thank you very much for that question. this is urgently important. we saw aspects of this in the late 19 and 1990s. black women and brown women were canaries in the coal mine. in cases in mississippi, such as -- 16-year-old who was charged
with depraved murder, a black 16 year old, because she had a -- the case of -- the first woman in this country to be charged with murder for having -- a young african american woman in her early 20's. this will show individuals even receivers -- for individuals who want to carry their pregnancies to term, that live in hospital environments, suffering communities where there are toxins that might make their pregnancy vulnerable, they will be people afraid to actually go to seek medical care because of the possibility of being criminally punished. it also creates pressure on doctors and nurses, and information in their patient. patients want to be able to get good quality health care. they don't need to be policed by their doctors and nurses. they certainly don't need the state criminally punishing them
when they have miscarriages and stillbirths. >> thank you very much, dr. robinson, your been asked in some pretty wild theoretical questions earlier about abortions being committed as a babies halfway of the birth canal. which of, course is not how it happens, it's just good television. it's not true. your time is cut short. can you give us a more accurate picture of when abortions typically happened during a prize pregnancy? what percentage happen in the first 12 weeks? finally, can you explain some of the scenarios that may lead a woman to seek an abortion later in a pregnancy? yes, thank you for the question. the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. early in the pregnancy. it is very few pregnancies that require, or may, need an abortion later in the pregnancy. it's important for us to keep in mind that we have to consider viability being more than just sectional age. sometimes, pregnancies that have progressed later, but are
later determined to have a lethal anomaly. they may, those are the ones, and that rare instance where a pregnant person may ought to terminate that pregnancy, as opposed to continuing it until she goes into labor or into term. and those instances where it may not be viable outside of the room, despite the gestational age or continue to carry the pregnancy. >> thank you, madam chair, you'll be a first person who gets a correct pronunciation of arrambide? during the process that you described in your testimony which was really important and moving, did you feel that your judgment was trusted, what should we learn from your experience about the importance of trusting women and individuals who seek abortion care, in terms of being in the best position to make those judgments? >> thank. you i believe i was trying to make that decision. there weren't that many onerous
restrictions put upon my access to care at the time. i think people are not trusted now. that's what's happening as a result of all these restrictions being in place. i want to address my response to mr. johnson's question. i trust people to make decisions about their body. just because he asked the question over and over again implying medical inaccuracies about the way abortion works, that doesn't change my answer. i trust people implicitly to make decisions about their body. in regard to later abortion, like dr. robertson russians, that can be determined in consultation with their doctor, i'm not across this man. thank you. >> the time has expired. >> thank you mister chair, i absolutely welcome the opportunity to speak about the humanity of the unborn child. the science that proves it the under baby has a heartbeat, separate dna, own blood type fingerprints, arms, legs, hands in toes.
ultrasound technology continues to advance and provides us with a window into the world of the unborn. this hearing is not about the unborn child. this hearing appears to have been called to exert improper influence of the supreme court on an unfinished league's opinion draft. the title of the hearing is revoking your rights, the ongoing crisis in abortion care access. the supposed right to abortion is not found anywhere in the text of the constitution. it was created by raw judicial power when the supreme court usurped the power of the elected officials at the state and federal level two and created a right that did not exist. we are a nation of laws. the rule of only works when we follow the actual text above the constitution and the laws made by elected officials. not when the courts create laws out of thin air. if someone thinks there is a law needed, then they use the
political process and allow elected officials who represent the voices of the people that elected them to determine what should be in law. this is how the rule of law works. unfortunately, the roe v. wade decision, the supreme court abruptly ended the political process. they created a right that did not exist. they ended the ability of elected officials to make the decision. roe was bad jurisprudence and should be overturned. power to legislate on abortion should go back to elected officials. i was glad to hear the chairman denounced the leak. too many democrats have been silent on the lead, despite lecturing us in this committee and elsewhere about institutional setup -- and important falling order. the leak was a break of institutional norms, trust, and confidentiality. the democrats did not immediately denounced that leak and most still have not done so, it shows that their words are
hollow. there fore institutional norms only when it suits them. this hearing for example, as mrs. foster so rightly put it in her written testimony, by holding this hearing before the dobbs decision comes out, this committee risk the appearance of exerting improper influence over our judiciary by critiquing an unfinished draft the public was not meant to see. thank you for that. institutional norms and regular order would mean that we should not be having this hearing at all. the majority is clearly hoping to pressure the supreme court to influence their decision. if you care about the rule of law in institutional norms i stop attacking the supreme court. denounce the leak as the despicable act that it is, denounced the polling of supreme court justices at their homes and in public, stop -- support the overturning of roe v. wade so that elected officials can once again make
allows instead of the. courts with that mrs. foster i wanted to ask you, if there was anything with the questions and the answers you've been hearing, is there anything that you would like to add to the discussions? >> absolutely. i would point out that no one on the other side of the aisle has seemed to say a word about increasing resources for pregnant and parenting women, forgetting women out of bad situations. you know, i think every abortion story there is a common thread there and that's that every woman has had an abortion has been let down in some way by, myself included. but we were given a one size fits all solution. we weren't given individualized care. we weren't given resources and support and life affirming options we were pushed towards abortion. that's why i appreciate what you and your colleagues are doing here and i'm just so grateful that you are here or standing for the human rights of all human beings.
>> well, and thank you for being here, mrs. foster. and i did want to add in my last three seconds, you know, for 50 years pro-lifers have been standing with the mothers and their children. you talk about, you know, pregnancy centers where pro-lifers wrap their arms around those women and those babies before and after birth. and so for many years, we have been doing that, and we hope to continue to do that. but after roe v. wade. so thank you very much for being here, and with that i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. mr. jeffries. >> i thank you very much. mister chairman, for convening this incredibly important hearing. i think the witnesses for your presence and i want to direct my questions to mrs. goodwin. i thank you for your virtual presence here, as well as for your legal expertise. at this there seems to be, to be a conflict between those of
us who want to make sure that a woman has the freedom to make her own health care decisions and those who want to criminalize health care. jim, the moment of this country, with government mandated pregnancies, even in the case of rape or incest. now, this draft opinion by justice alito regarding dobbs the jackson, women's health organization, calls for the removal of a constitutional right for more than 100 million american women, i believe 167, to be exact. mrs., goodwin if justice alito's draft becomes the final majority opinion of the court, how many years of judicial president with the supreme court be overturning? >> well if we're talking around roe v. wade specifically it would be 49 years of supreme
court jurisprudence. but i would even suggest that we look back [inaudible] oklahoma 1940, to where the united states supreme court made clear that reproductive freedom and autonomy were a human right in the united states and so we actually missed the mark by just looking if we look to a case that involves the man who was being delight reproductive of autonomy in 1942, the supreme thought says that was unstuck constitutional. >> so that's an extraordinary case that the court muay thai, a runaway right maria right wing radical majority of the supreme court to justify subpoenaed in the draft, justice alito quotes and refers to sir matthew i believe approximately 90-day 98 times. is that quite a? >> number of times. i can't express that that's the exact number of times but that
he does, but is alarming nonetheless that he does, considering it that so matthew hale was one that wrote about covering meaning women had no independent identity apart for their husbands that it also bet that women could be legally beaten by their husbands and legally raped by their husbands too. >> trust me. trust me, miss goodwin, we're going to get that. now, justice alito described sir matthew hale as a great and eminent legal authority, is that correct? >> that is correct. mister chair, i ask unanimous consent to encourage a piece from the washington should sites alito who cites a judge who treats women as witches and property. >> without objection. >> now, sir hail, an english judge from the mid 16 hundreds, actually sentenced to women to
guess who he deemed as witches. is that correct? >> that may very well be correct. i would say that he cites several other legal scholars as well who supported those ideas and views. >> no, this so-called legal scholar, sir hale, is the one who actually was the foundation for the most frequently cited defense of the infamous marital rape exception. is that true? >> that's correct. >> sir hale once wrote that the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife ahth given up herself in this kind on to her husband that she cannot retreat, and quote. >> that's right. >> so essentially, justice hail hale or sir hale, viewed women
as property that could be violently raped and abused without consequence. is that true? >> that is true. >> and so most of the legal basis for justice alito's draft opinion and his doctrine stems form it must modernistic so-called scholar from the 17th century who died before a single word of the constitution was written. is that true? >> that's correct. >> and he was not from the early states. >> and that note that individuals want to speak about the original intent and would discard 49 years of settled precedent here is outrageous is, problematic, and that's what will undermine the confidence of the american people in our judiciary.
we are going to continue to stand for the freedom of a woman to make her own health care decisions. thank you for your testimony. >> the gentleman yields back. >> mr. biggs. >> thanks, mister chairman. on the one hand, the focus of this hearing seems to be on the draft opinion as we just heard from the last gentleman and from several of the questioners on the other side and the timing of this hearing makes its suspect in and of itself. the line of questioning. but it seems to be is putting or attempting to intimidate the justices of the u.s. supreme court and actually probably in some ways is going to encourage the continued advocacy in front of judges homes and as the air just says, it's going to anticipate increased violence. but in a way, that whole thing, that whole aspect of this, is a mere distraction. because this isn't about that,
necessarily. and it doesn't about saving a mom's life. that advice is one less than one tenth of 1% of all pregnancies related to abortion. advances in medical technology have developed so far that it is almost always possible to save the lives of more than one and maybe. this isn't about pregnant men or how you define woman. this isn't about personal autonomy because sciences has progressed so far to tell us about the individuality of that baby, the development, what paper looks like, how it grows, whether it feels pains, recognizes sounds and voices etc. you know, what this is really about is nearly 65 million a little persons who have been aborted, killed since roe v. wade decision. this is about killing babies. that's what this hearing is about today. chameleon lori culminate on msnbc to fantasize about having sex with a person who leaked the supreme court's draft opinion of dobbs v. jackson then joyfully boarding the baby out of spite if it turned out the lead was a conservative.
this is about in arizona's state senator, a democrat state senator, arguing that his own foster children should have been aboard it. this is about pennsylvania's lieutenant governor, john freshman, saying abortion without any limit is sacred. this is about a change in the cultural attitude about abortions. this marks a significant shift, a significant shift in what we have discussed over time about abortion, where even hillary random clinton said in 2008 that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. that isn't the debate anymore from the left. this is about shouting [inaudible] kicking off. this is from michael north, i'm quoting here, this is about shouting that taking the life of an innocent in the woman is not a big deal,, quote, the late great norm mcdonald was a [inaudible] front suggestion [inaudible] common refrain that the worst aspect of this great comedian bill cosby's sexual crimes was, quote, the hypocrisy. no, no response to, i think it was rubbing. it's my family that was rapists are hypocrites. a man willing to commit
enormous since will more easily commit lessons and one struggles to imagine a more egregious sin than killing innocent little baby. this is about the [inaudible] pro-life of left telling probably if americans there to chat when pro-life advocates protest probe the raid roe v. wade that preferred to be returned. but [inaudible] protests the spleen quote justices to intimidate. demo when some have failed to condemn violence like the arson [inaudible] sector pregnancy center in wisconsin or an origin or attacking churches and houses of which if you preach the sanctity of life. or remaining solid when the virginia train attorney general once warts attorney [inaudible] that they must refrain from harassing protesters, gets his way to shut that. when the secretary of the treasury testifies that portion is actually go to the economy, act apparently for getting the economy of the life of the unborn in the womb child. the left will stop at nothing to advance this radical agenda. last week, during our markup,
when we one of our colleagues set, nothing will be enough to protect our democracy and our fundamental right short of sending this [inaudible] majority of the court to its rightful place in the minority into the dust dustbin of history by expanding the supreme court. we have heard [inaudible] miss foster, is abortion and act of love? >> never. >> are pro-life policies races? >> absolutely not. >> the reason i ask that is a house oversight committee hearing, a statement crisis examining the urgent need to protect and expand abortion rights, one of the witnesses there who also testified previously in this committee said abortion is a blessing, abortion is love, abortion is freedom. is it any of those things, miss foster? >> it is not, and how many times you repeat a light does not make it true. >> so we had a member of the house testify that abortion restrictions are part of the intertwined systems of
oppression that deny black, indigenous and people of color their constitutional rights. is that accurate, miss foster? >> absolutely not. pro-life policies are meant to protect all human beings. >> thank you, my time is -- i yield back. >> the time, the gentleman yields back. mr. smallwell. >> thank you, chairman. you know, we are talking about it decision that is so personal and one that families and individuals with their families and their friends make, oftentimes at the kitchen table. it's one of those few decisions in your life that will require you to consult with your friends and your family. it's like deciding what career you are going to pursue,
whether you want to have a family who, you are going to marry. and it's a decision for our family that we don't want the government to be a part of at all. for my wife the decision to have three children was her decision, a decision that she made in consultation with her husband, her friends, and her family. for every woman in america who has to make this decision, it's a decision that they have the right to make with their friends, their family, the individuals they choose to consult. and in no way should these guys over here be a part of her decision. these guys have no right to be at that kitchen table as she
makes that very personal decision about whether she wants to be a parent or not. and that's what they're asking for. they want to be at the kitchen table. they want to tell her whether she should or should not be able to be a parent. they don't want to be at the kitchen table for anything else after the baby is born. they don't want to be there at all. they don't want to be there to help her finance that family, they walk away from every piece of legislation that we have that would help mothers feed their kids. they don't want to be there to help the mother educate their children. they don't want to be there to help her get a childcare tax credit or child tax credit that could be permanent. they don't want to be there to fund the education in good schools in the neighborhood. they certainly don't want to be there to take the most
dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people that could call that kid at their elementary school. they don't want to be there to make college more affordable. they just want to be there to tell her she has to have a government mandated pregnancy. and if he doesn't do it, she's a criminal. that's what they want to be there for. miss goodwin, if this leaked miss goodwin, opinion is finalized, if this leaked opinion will is finalized this open the floodgates with this open the floodgates to to allow allow states to states to criminalize criminalize a woman's personal health care decision? >> yes, it will, we've already seen signs of that coming from the slate legislatures that have been the most active in drafting various kinds of abortion bans even before now. >> miss goodwin, with this
opinion invite states to pass even more restrictive laws that would provide more rights to a rapist then to his victim? >> that's right. we've already seen that with states that have wanted to empower and embolden rapist. even their family members to be able to sue a woman who has been sexually assaulted and raped. >> miss goodwin, from this opinion, does it also flow that you could buy and contraception? >> from this decision which criticizes justices who supported roe v. wade, those are the same justices and roby connecticut. this particular dropped of opinion is made a direct reality in june, it would mean essentially that even contraception could be something that could be
outlawed, or states could seek to outlaw that. that this is a court that might allow. that >> chairman, i thank you again for holding this hearing. these guys do not belong at the kitchen table of any woman in america as she makes this very personal decision. we know that if they force this decision on somebody, they are not going to be there for anything else. i yield back. >> chairman yields back at this time. the committee will stand in recess for five minutes. the committee stands in recess.
this hearing is taking a recess. we will be back with live coverage when the hearing resumes. until then, some from this morning's washington journal. >> she's a democrat from texas in her second term, making her first appearance on the washington journal. congresswoman, good morning, i want to start with that effort last week. the failed effort by congressional democrats to quantify will be weighed into
federal law. texas, one of those states with those so-called trigger laws. explain what happens in texas if the supreme court next month were to overturn roe v. wade. >> first of all, people need to remember that roe v. wade is still the law of the land. it has been the last 50 years. until something happens at the supreme court, women need to know that they still have the freedom to choose. texas regrettably has sort of led the way in this arena. we've already been living pretty much close at the live with roe v. wade. because the abortion law that texas passed last year, the silver rick, it really almost paralyzes abortion. it just totally takes away the decision for a woman to make her own personal decision. so, the law itself also included a provision that if
roe v. wade were overturned, within 30 days of the decision, another portion triggers. that's why they call it a trigger right. it has nothing to do with guns. but it's called a trigger law. if this action happens, it triggers another provision which essentially criminalizes abortion. especially for medical providers, if anyone assists, aids, a bats and any procedure, they will be subject to a charge of a felony. a felony. and potential jail time. it is really what's at stake here. with the supreme court, going what we think it's going to do, we will be criminalizing abortion. we will be criminalizing medical care. i think that this is something that people need to realize.
it's more than just roe v. wade. it is about criminalization of abortion. >> you mentioned a second ago, texas is leading the way here on these kind of laws. what is it about texas and this issue that texas is leading the way on this issue? >> well, i think the problem in texas is similar to what the problem is nationally. when you see the polls that actually, the gallup poll says that 80% of the public wants access to abortion. and things that roe v. wade should be attracted. similarly, and texas, it is about, i believe it's about 65 70%. in my own district, we did a tech survey of 40,000 plus people. the votes were 72% for protections and access to abortion. they are not listening to the public. they are listening to their base, they're listening to their own personal views. and they are listening to the
plan that they have had for decades to overturn roe v. wade. the problem is that we need a change in governance, that will listen to the public and will listen to judicial president. >> on that bill to quantify roe v. wade that passed the house but was not able to overcome the filibuster last week in the senate, it was your text a colleague, henry cuellar, who was the democrat, the only democrat, against that bill when it was voted on in the house. i'm wondering your thoughts on his stance on this issue. is this something that democrats should show democrats other his pro-life stance? >> you know, i have known mr. cuellar for a long time. he is catholic like i am. we just have different views on this issue. i'm a former judge, i believe
in the role of la, i believe and decisions that are being made by supreme court. more importantly, i'm a woman. this personally affects me expects my nieces, my grandchildren, it is personal to a woman. it is about women's personal freedoms. you know, freedom doesn't get -- >> and the policy question of abortion which we should be debating. i think it's all right to vigorously debate or protest a supreme court decision. i think it's all right to change laws or amend the constitution in response to a supreme court decision. but it is not all right to intimidate the justices during their deliberations. the judiciary is supposed to go focused on the law and the constitution is. one branch of government that's
insulated from politics and political pressures for that very reason. you know, just as often as depicted this blindfolded because it's supposed to take note of the politics or personalities before them or the favoritism or vought bias that's attached to them. one exception in that depiction, by the way, can we find in our own supreme supreme court chamber in capitol were justice is not blindfolding winter looks of the constitution. the supreme court [inaudible] exchanging arguments and testing various reasons and opinions among the nine justices. in the sanctity and security of knowing that as they hone and form and modify and perfect their positions that process will remain confidential so they can feel free to alter their opinions as facts and reasons dictates. this process is essential to the role of the court. the unprecedented reach of breach of that confidentiality by the leaking of a draft
opinion is catastrophic to that process. for the chairman of the house judiciary committee to minimize this development is a distraction. i personally find appalling and alarming. it is, i'm afraid, a very dangerous milestone in the lefts attacks on our constitution and it's fundamental institutions. and there's no blinking at the fact that the supreme court is under sustained attack by the left. they've refused to protect the deliberations of the court from political pressure and influence and indeed, they have launched a concerted effort to apply political pressure and threats such as so is that we heard from senator schumer recently by intimidation, such as assembling mobs in front of justices homes, and refusing to prosecute those crimes under our law, and by using the legislative branch to attack a draft opinion while it's being considered by the court, along with explicit threats to pack the court if they don't get their way. that is the judicial crisis
that we face. and the judiciary committee, not only is not standing in defense of our judiciary, it is leading the attacks. you know, conservatives for 50 years have a port the roe decision. but we never employed such tactics as we see from the left today. now, if the dobbs draft becomes the decision of the court, the decision over abortion becomes a policy matter again that rightly belongs to the people through their elected representatives. here in the scratch or, more precisely, the legislative branches of the 50 states. this debate is a appropriate appropriate in this body before this committee, and by the way, that's all the dobbs decision says. i agree with the chairman that the decision to become a parent 's uniquely personal one. in which the government has the right to internship on. but the fine point of the question is when does one become a parent, and that's really the center of this debate.
miss howard bt, it really struck home to be, you said, do you trust people to decide what to do with their own bodies. i would -- is that an accurate depiction of what you said? >> yes. >> i'd go a step further. i'd say that nobody has a right to tell you what to do with your own body. would you agree? >> yes. >> okay, then we have the perfect agreement on that. but before we go on i also have to ask the question, if this is solely about your body, does this process stop your heart from beating? does it suck your brains out of your skull? does it tear your limbs from your body? >> >> but if you count damages as of that question, then maybe we have to entertain the possibility that we're talking
about another human being as well who has rights that have to be balanced through the laws that need to be talked about informs like forums like this. the forms that represent all the people which is precisely where that comes draft would replace that decision. miss foster, as a society, we've got a clear consensus that a human being has a brain wave and a heartbeat they have. they have an indisputable right to life. they cannot be legally harmed. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> let me just ask you, is that the standard that week -- that is the standard we apply to the end of life. is it also a standard we should apply to the beginning of life? >> it absolutely is, yes. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. raskin. >> thank you, mister chairman. you know, a blinken once wrote a beautiful passage in which he compared the constitution and the declaration. he said the constitution is like a silver picture, framing at the apple of gold and the apple of gold he said is
liberty, liberty for each and every person in this country. and the silver from exists to protect the apple, he said. the constitution exists to protect freedom. the apple does not exist to protect the frame. well today, both democracy and freedom are under siege in our country. there are right-wing extremists and fanatics to want to destroy both the silver frame of our constitutional democracy and they came here to show us that they mean business on january the 6th of last year, and also the golden apple of personal freedom to make our own decisions about the most intimate and personal decisions that we could make. they have brought mob violence to the congress of the united states, threatening to hang the vice president in order to overthrow a democratic election, and now they are about to do violence to the constitution and the doctrine of a right to privacy. a freedom that tens of millions of americans and women have
considered central to their ability to lead their lives and to conduct their business as citizens of the country. well, this isn't eliminating hearing, mister chairman. the republicans own witness, the witness they called, is candidly and openly calling for a nationwide ban on all abortions with no exceptions for rape or incest. and if i've got that wrong, i would invite mr. foster to correct me. to have it wrong, yes or no? >> if we added rape and incest exceptions, which would you vote for it? >> okay -- i reclaim my time. of course. this is a position for government compelled childbirth, in all cases so extreme that it excludes the vast majority of americans of all political persuasions. talk, for example, to our
republican colleague, nancy mace, who has written movingly of her own rape at 8:16, and she refused to stand down before anti choice extremists in south carolina who wanted to criminalize abortion, as this witness does, in every single case, in all the cases. the market party wants to turn what is today, and what has been for 50 years a constitutional right into a federal crime. and they want to do it before the fourth of july. i want america to reflect on what's going on here. my wife sarah and i have been parents for 50 years. there's nothing i'm proud of them have been raised three he would means of great decency and character. and i've only been in public office for 15 years, half of that time, that have entered to say i've come to know politicians pretty well. and i hope if offense none of
my colleagues here, but i must say, i trust my 29 year old and 25 year old daughter's infinitely more to make the personal life planning decisions about when where and how to start their families, and all of the related attended personal health care decisions about their bodies and their lives than i would ever trust the class of politicians to make those decisions for them. and that's what this is about. and afterward with great public officials from both parties, people like john lewis, people like liz cheney, people like nancy pelosi, but i would not trust even the best politicians to make those judgments for my daughters. much less would i trust the politicians who are fighting to criminalize abortion in all cases, with no exceptions, even for violent rape or incest across all of america. why would we put this decision in the hands of those people?
you know, abraham lincoln was right about something else. he said, government cannot endure permanently half slave. he said, government cannot endure permanently have safe and have free. and ultimately, i am sure that abe lincoln's as right about the 21st century as he was about the 19th century. we are not going to be able to endure half free and half controlled by the government. i tremble for my country when i contemplate what this five justice majority is about to do to our country. i yield back to you, mister chairman. >> gentleman yields back, yields back. mr. george. >> thank you, mister chairman. they have been a number of statements brought by the other side this morning and now this afternoon that i just don't think are accurate. one was the court and republicans want to go after other rights.
i just want to read from the draft decision. page 62. majority rights of the draft this repeated, and to ensure our decisions are not misunderstood or not mischaracterized we emphasize that our constituent [inaudible] constitutional right to abortion or [inaudible] outright, go other opinion in this [inaudible] -- they said there's no question what republicans want, they want to federal law. but republicans are radical. is respecting the sanctity of life, miss foster, is understanding that all life is precious, and that it is in, we are endowed with that life by our creator, the special [inaudible] mentioned in the document that started this whole thing we call america, is there anything really radical about that? >> not at all. >> life is precious, isn't it? >> love it [inaudible] most precious thing. without life we can't exercise any other right. >> and here's what the court said. the court said, we are not even going to make it an ultimate
decision, which is going to leave it to the respective states. at the stated question, the decision that was in front of the court, that they write about in the draft opinion, state of mississippi, they said this. they didn't they said, 15 weeks. they set at five weeks, the unborn child's heart because beating. i did which the child begins to move for the win. a ten weeks vital organs predicate. fortunate 11 weeks a diaphragm is beginning to develop. at 12 weeks the chart a second human form in all relevant respect. that all happens before the deadline we set. and we could disagree with that, but that's the case in front of the court that they're saying, we're going to let states make this decision. the state of mississippi, through their elected officials, pass a law that said that, and they said [inaudible] that's radical. and now, what is radical in my mind is the position they take. we just asked a question of one of our colleagues, he wouldn't answer the question what is radical is the position they take, because they say no
limit. is that right, miss foster? >> absolutely accurate. you look at new york reproductive health, that you look at the women's health protection act, they go so far beyond codifying roe, so to speak, they expand role. they do so -- >> i was thinking about why they passed last week and what they try to pass last week in the united states senate, right? you wouldn't talk about radical? tell the members of this committee and the american people what they try to pass in the senate last week. >> the women's health protection act would wipe out more than 500 protective laws. it would invalidate informed consent provisions, waiting period, parental much of notifications, much less consent -- >> go back to that one. so a minor is going to have this surgery done, this procedure done, and some legislatures, [inaudible] people respect to states, they think it may make some sense to tell their mom and dad that they know what's going on. in the bill that the senate tried to pass like we got rid of that? >> >>
my teenager couldn't get an aspirin in school without parental permission and consent. apparently can get an abortion without even notification under the women's health protection act. >> that sounds pretty radical. that would include all the way up. i don't even like to talk about this. it seems so wrong. all the way up until just moments before that little child is about to be born, is that right, miss foster? >> on their birth. >> frankly, it's even worse. we had a democrat, former democrat governor, and a state not too far from here who said it shouldn't stop there. shouldn't stop there. government northam and said, it's not even up to that point. it's just unbelievable. it's even past that when the strong could end the life of the week. is that right? >> he did, he said that after the child was born, that the child would be kept comfortable while i debate ensued about whether or not the child would be given any kind of medical
care. >> as mr. mcclintock pointed out, that child would have a beating heart, a functioning brain, everything else. if we had a democratic governor, and a state party not too far from here, unbelievable. that's the radical, that's the position that the american people say, wait a minute. we don't want to go there. we don't want that. we would much prefer, i believe, to let the legislatures in the respective states put something together that make sense for their state. you and i, i know where you and i are, we think our life is precious and should be protected. that's not what mississippi said. they don't want to let that happen. they want the radical bill that they try to pass the united states senate last week that would allow all kinds of things happened in the american people know instinctively is wrong. i yield back. >> germany elves back, miss jayapal? >> thank you mister chairman. in 2019, i was compelled to share my abortion story as states pursued abortion ban
legislation. you want to know what's radical? a radical and politicized the supreme court majority now stands poised to take away the basic freedom that women and pregnant people must have to make choices about our own bodies and instead to have the government force pregnancy. here's the thing that really calls me. the hypocrisy of an anti freedom, anti abortion movement that claims to support life and freedom. our republican witness, and our republican colleagues today spoke about the so-called violence of abortion when they are this very people who have opposed to finding for contraception, to prevent pregnancy, or oppose the child tax credit. which clearly reduced -- even abdicated to -- from their parents or withhold baby formula for babies. babies at the border. in fact, states with the most work to coney and abortion restrictions also have the highest maternal rate. that's the real violence here.
that's the hypocrisy i want to examine. so, dr. robinson, maternal and infant mortality is a raging epidemic. black women and children are especially at risk. what are the anti abortion, anti freedom advocates doing to protect the lives of black mothers and infants. i have a number of questions. if you keep your answer short. >> they are not doing anything to protect the lives of mothers and infants. i appreciate you asking the question. the things that our patients need right now is affective contraception, we need access to health care before you come pregnant. we need access to care beyond 60 days postpartum. we need to be able to send our children to child care if we do choose to parent. we need access to affective abortion. abortion in your own community, if you choose not to be apparent. >> at every turn, this anti-freedom movement, as you said, that is opposing abortion and reproductive health access are the same people who don't want to provide health care to people and want to tear down
the affordable care act or medicaid. miss arrambide, how much will abortion ban strain are burdened health care system and harm the health of pregnant people in children of color? >> thank you for your question. i mean, we are already seeing what it looks like for about 50,000 texans to go into other states trying to access the care they need. when we see that 26 other states are going to ban abortion if this draft opinion goes into effect, it's going to be exponential. people will be forced to carry their pregnancies longer. that's only if they can access the care. if they can travel. if they can find childcare. if they can take off work to access the care they need. if they can afford to take, to pay for their procedure. the regular health system, especially in texas, we've already seen how over rented it is. we are a state that has cut family planning, cut access to prenatal care. we don't pay attention to the
high maternal mortality rates. and addition to that, we have not expanded medicare. we don't take care of the people that are in our communities now. we see the devastating effects of these types of bans in texas especially. >> thank you so much for the work you do. even though the data is clear that the abortion rate has fallen, thanks to better contraceptive use, and fewer unintended pregnancies, miss glen fosters organization has written articles and amicus briefs and opposition to a wide array of reproductive health care services, including inter uterine devices, plan b, in vitro fertilization. so they're clearly not interested in preventing unintended pregnancies. in fact, justice alito and his draft decision also does note that the supreme court established many other modern rights based on the same reasoning as abortion rights, and specifically includes presidents around contraception. by the way, other things like interracial or same-sex marriage. professor goodwin, does this
so-called pro life movement solely focused on revoking abortion rights, or are the are also working to revoke other rights as well? >> other rights within the reproductive health space. and writes that our associate with the right for both so that when justice alito and the draft opinion says turn to your state and go vote how, does one do that effectively when the supreme court has dismantled parts of the voting rights act? where this becomes very difficult for poor people and people of color to be able to avoid in these states. >> in response to mr. jordan, my colleagues across the aisle's question about the fact that the supreme court is not aiming to take away other rights, in that same draft decision, didn't justice alito make reference to several other rights that follow essentially the same logic as this decision? >> that is right. >> thank you. and the wake of this opinion, it is clear that the anti abortion movement is not pro-life. they are anti-freedom and they
support abortion bans that would mandate government government mandated pregnancy and disproportionately harm pregnancy -- and children of color. >> the time has expired. >> thank you, and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. steube, for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair. more than 63 million unborn children have been murdered by abortion in the united states since roe v. wade was decided in 1973. [inaudible] there is more than 1 million a year, that equates to more than 2700 children a day whose life was taken during that period. in my state of florida, it's approximately 70,000 a year. let me put those numbers in perspective for you. 63 million is more than the number of deaths in the holocaust, stalin's forced famines, the cambodian genocide, the armenian genocide combined. 2700 per day is more than the death toll at pearl harbor, and
just shy of september 11th, and that happens every single day in this country, the 70,000 per year in florida is more than the combine populations of the cities of prague or not, venice suffering, arcadia that are in my district every single year in florida alone. 63 million unborn babies since roe v. wade. many of them would be adults now. they will be contributing to our communities to, our economy, making the world a better place. they never had a chance, because a court created a right where non existed in the law. at some point in the 20th century, liberals developed a bizarre obsession where the center misuse of medical science. they ignored the text of the constitution and the declaration of independence. the will of the electorate, and nearly two centuries of supreme court precedent to mandate that each state legalize abortion in an infamous decision that even its ideological supporters have a hard time defending on legal grounds. roe v. wade took discretion away from like to officials and
required every state in the union to allow the killing of the unborn. congress has never passed a bill legalizing the killing of unborn children in our country. recent attempts in this congress to do so have, thankfully, then stopped by members of their own party. the supreme court in roe, inventing a right to -- despite no law allowing, at the court ignored that such a wright had been in. and 184-year history of the court. today, we may stand on the verge of writing that wrong. instead of accepting this fact and turning their attention to the border crisis, inflation, gas prices, or the crime and democrat, democrats are doubling down on their obsession with killing unborn. for instance, in legislation this congress has been a little too here lately, democrats have sought to legalize abortion up to the point of birth. some democrats have famously now explains how they would euthanized children outside the womb shortly after they are born. and then explain the procedure that they would take to
accomplish it. democrats biggest focus right now is making sure that no jurisdiction in america can do anything to stop the killing of a nine-month baby in the womb. they're infatuation with, and admiration for, abortion is one of the most shameful occurrences in american political history. you want to talk about genocide with no further than united states, we're over 63 million and counting children have been killed in the name of choice. of course, democrats can't let pure hypocrisy get in the way of their accomplishing stated mission. even the chairman couldn't help himself and bring the issue up in his opening statement. there's been another member let's alluded to it. the same people who called january six protesters domestic terrorist, insurrectionists are now cheering on protesters violating federal laws. they attempt to intimidate the supreme court justices at their homes. of course, biden's weaponized and politicize the department of justice. who would rather investigate parents protesting at school boards, turn the blind eye to clear violations of federal law
that is happening right now the justices homes. i'm sure if we had trump supporters at the homes of liberal judges, it would be the next ex essential threat to democracy. an fbi swat teams would what's democrats call, weapons of mass destruction, probably raiding their homes at night, swiftly locking them up in solitary confinement with no bail while they awaited trial for over here. full stop. mrs. foster, in my limited time i have left, can you speak further about the sale of child tissue, and other, words the sale of body parts of aborted children by planned parenthood and other abortionists? >> absolutely. yeah, that is just another way that the abortion industry makes money. it's interesting, this hearing called by your colleagues on the other side, it's about grandstanding, fearmongering, misinformation, all sides. intimidation. what's true is that we are -- in supporting life and all
human beings. we did that for -- when they filed a briefing and ups. we did that for children in the. when we shine a light on exactly what planned parenthood is doing with the bodies of these children that it had boards. another abortion industry players. all too frequently, they are selling body parts for research, for examination, we have heard even that it's been exposed that they are often even burned, incinerated, in order to power our street lamps. that is simply inhumane. that is the core of the abortion industry. treating people like things. stripping away the humanity of human beings that science has now and have been human beings for many decades. long before roe. -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. thank you. >> the gentleman from florida
is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much, madam chair. thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. after sitting here and listening to this for a while, it's difficult to know exactly where to start. i think i'll start here. i grew up in a rural part of florida. my parents were poor. but they were good decent, honest people. who taught their seven children to be good, decent and honest. my mother was in church every sunday. that meant i was in church every sunday. my mother taught me to not just listen to a sermon. she taught me to try to be a sermon. to practice what i heard, preached, to treat people with respect.
also leave them with their dignity. so because of that i made a decision on time ago that i would dedicate my life to public service. that i wanted to protect people. i want -- i alternately decided the best way to do that was to become a police officer. madam chair, i can tell, you as a police officer, i cannot tell you the number of times i may have disagreed with people's personal choices, beliefs, decisions. but i took an oath that i would protect them and their constitutional rights to those decisions and those beliefs. that's what sets us apart from every other nation. your family, your life, your religion, your circumstances your belief. your bodies.
it is what makes this the greatest nation on planet earth. i swore as a police officer, and so did we in this body, that we would protect that. as a police detective, i have investigated sexual assault, rape, and incest. and madden, and i'm speaking to all my colleagues, if you are willing, the trauma associated with these types of attacks and abuse. the darkness, the hopelessness, the humiliation, the shame. madam chair, certainly it appears that these politicians have no shame. on the one hand, they shout, government needs to get out of our business. they shouts, we need less
government. when it comes to a woman's most intimate, most private, most personal decisions, and women's freedom, and her right to privacy, certain politicians want full uninterrupted unfiltered access to what a woman does with her body. you know, there's been a lot of talk about the leakers. well, perhaps the leader is a conservative who just happens to believe that role is established, settled law and is appalled at the plan to overturn it and simply sounded the alarm. can't we just stop trying to
shame and control america's daughters? let's help them [inaudible] sir, as we should to their full potential. i trust them. and i ask every member of this body to get out of their personal business and trust them too. professor goodwin, i want to ask you, why do you think there is disagreement between a state laws and reliable, consistent polling, the overall looming majority of the american people believe that roe should stay in place. but there are some of my colleagues who say, the hell with that. why do you think that state laws are inconsistent with reliable polling showing broad support for the right to an abortion? professor well, because there is an agenda to dismantle the rule of law in our democracy as we know it, if [inaudible] realize that row the wait was a
7 to 2 opinion, five of the seven were republicans upon which. justice blackburn was put on the court by richard nixon. what we see today is antithetical to that history. >> thank you so much, professor. madam chair, i yield back. >> thank you. the chair recognizes mr. massie for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. this hearing and the context is being offered or called and the title of it is just part of an ongoing effort of the radical left to influence the supreme court through intimidation. the decision should have never been leaked and right now, what's happening here with, what the democrats are doing, is to try to amplify that leak in order to to try -- it's a last ditch effort to influence this decision. miss foster, you mentioned in your opening statement something that i think needs to be explored more and i want to give your chance to do that. you talked about euphemisms.
he didn't really get a chance to discuss some of those euphemisms, but i think i did what some of them are. but can you tell us what the euphemistic language is that the radical left uses to describe abortion, and why they do that? >> well, he or talking about the child in the womb. unless your president biden, the use terms like clump of tissue, you know, clump of cells, things like that. they don't seem to recognize and admit that it is a child in the womb, even when their own president does, even when all embryology textbooks to, even when the vast majority of the american people, anyone who's seen an ultrasound can recognize that humanity. >> i mean, aren't we all just a clump of cells at the end of the day? i mean, that's what life is, we ourselves that replicate and divide. and that's what a baby is doing inside of the womb. that, i would say, is life, when cells, you know, multiply,
on their own, without somebody causing that. you know, the other euphemisms that they used to describe the baby in the womb are fetus, pregnancy tissue, this abortion will just quietly remove the pregnancy tissue, they might say. >> protect self conception. >> product self conception. medical waste. i mean, you've already did the discussed that. they referred to on board maybe south medical waste once they've been awarded. ending -- i find interesting that language that they used to describe ending the life of a non-born baby. abortion care? who's being taken care of their? birth control? it's actually a consequence of the lack of birth control. and reproductive freedom? these are all euphemisms the use for describing the process of ending the life of an unborn baby. and abortion clinic, even the
name of the leading abortion clinic is deceptive in itself. planned parenthood? it's the lack of planning, it's an emergency that's gone on. it's an unpleasant thing that's happened, and now they are trying to treat it like an emergency when it should be the birth of a baby. those who work prematurely and the life of their baby are being called patients. you know. and, my body, my trust. i remember when i was young, and before i learned, you know, how babies came about, i thought when they said, my body, my choice, that they were talking about, you know, whatever was inside of the woman was part of their body. the baby is not the body of the women that it's inside of. it's another life. it's not the body. of the woman. so why do you think they use this language? >> at today's hearing has been
repeat with those euphemisms and missed directions that i referenced in the opening statement. abortion is a scourge, plain and simple. it's a fact that abortion is presented as a solution to anyone's problems. and it's a crime that corporate abortion interests and this kind of euphemism and misdirection hold so much raised over so many. and we have to do better than this because our constitutional democracy is at stake. if abortion solved poverty or improved material traditions, wouldn't we have, you know, closed the gap in the last 50 years? but right now, inequality is greater than ever and wage growth is more stagnated ever. so please, with the idea that abortion improves equality. >> yeah! and i think they're using these words to deceive. because of the actually described what they were doing, what an abortion causes, that it ends a life, far fewer people would choose that. and so, i think they do it to deceive.
but i hold out hope that the reason they use this language use some of the people in the abortion industry still have a conscience, that they know that it's wrong, what they are doing is wrong, and they come up with this language to maintain the cognitive dissonance that allows them to end a life while, at the same time, knowing that ending a life is morally and ethically wrong. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. the chair recognizes myself for five minutes. i want to thank chairman nadler for calling this hearing and for our witnesses who joining us today to sound the alarm about the imminent restrictions on american reproductive freedom. from my entire adult life, abortion has been recognized as a legal form of health care, and so have a growing number of types of contraception. that means that i've had the freedom to decide when and if i would become a parent.
i did eventually set aside with my husband to have three wonderful children. but i had the freedom to make that decision on my own terms after right completed years of college, law school, a judicial clerkship and legal training. i had the freedom to make the decision to become a parent when i was physically, emotionally and financially ready to take that step. i had the freedom to make that decision once i was ready to spend 30 months being pregnant, with all of the temporary and permanent physical changes that entails, and ready to spend the next 30 years and counting nurturing those children and putting their knees ahead of my own. i was able to make those decisions about my health and well-being and that of my family because of roe v. wade and other cases such as griswold that recognize that as americans, we have human rights and constitutional rights to privacy and liberty to make these most deeply personal decisions about whether and when to become a parent, and where and whom to marry
ourselves, and with those most concerned and close to us, whether family, medical providers, or faith. leaders, free from government interference and control >> or lock in that choice due to opportunity or resources had a huge impact on their lives. i have also seen the impact upon the health and well-being of clients i represented as a lawyer. of having the freedom, resources, and support, or like the rev, to make reproductive decisions free from government interference. the vast majority of americans understand that reproductive health decisions are complex. they should be made by a woman and knows she's close to you based on their individual, medical, individual circumstances. that the government does not belong in control of that decision. we are at a point where the draft opinion in dobbs versus jackson women's health organization indicates that the supreme court is poised to
overturn roe v. wade which will threaten access to abortion care across the country. and undermine other personal privacy and liberty rights. some of our colleagues have suggested that the purpose of this hearing is to pressure the supreme court's decision in the dobbs case. i would suggest that our republican colleagues, particularly mitch mcconnell, have already exercised undue influence on the supreme court's decision by packing the court with far-right justices. the purpose of this hearing is exactly as its title suggests. to examine the likely impact upon americans freedom to make reproductive health care decisions if roe v. wade is overturned. opening the door to increasingly restrictive laws and, as senator mcconnell and others have suggested, an outright national ban on abortion care. last fall, the house voted to pass a women's health protection act would quantify many of the rights enshrined in roe v. wade and casey. the senate needs to join us on protecting these essential human rights to privacy liberty
by passing that bill. if the current senate will pass the bill, the majority of americans who support having americans freedom to make reproductive health care decisions without government interference, they need to know that we need to change the senate. restricting access to abortion care has ripple effects across generations. we cannot go back to an era of criminalized abortion. so, one of my priorities in congress has been to address our country's rising and unnecessary rates of maternal mortality. a health care emergency that disproportionately affects many of my constituents. the u.s. has a pregnancy related death rate that far exceeds that of similar developed countries. and it is exponentially worse for women of color. the vast majority of such deaths are almost entirely preventable. with abortion health care on the chopping block, i am very concerned about how maternal mortality across the country would be affected. dr. robinson, could you address that question for me? >> yes.
i take care, i've taken care of pregnant people for more than 17 years. so, being a physician who cares for pregnant people, i do understand there are circumstances where people need to have access to the full gambit of options including abortion care. the same communities that are having difficulty having access to compassionate abortion care are the same communities that do have the highest maternal literally fatality rates. this care is very important. i think the thing that we need to focus on is giving these patients what they need, so we can decrease the import mortality rate. making sure that they have access to care and not just once they become pregnant. making sure they can continue that access to care beyond the postpartum period. thank you very much. i see that my time has expired. at the at this time, i would recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes.
>> i think the chair. earlier, i was just posting what sets us apart as a country and i would suggest it is life, liberty of the pursuit of happiness and the constitutional framework that protects that. quick question for you, miss foster. a lot has been made about the implications with respect to race on the road opinion and what we come down this summer. would you agree that if you look at the most recent data, 38% of abortions affect black babies? >> tragically, yes. >> 21% affect hispanic babies? >> yes. >> a lot of number has been raised about -- a lot of questions that issues have been raised but privately just. in fact you have this change with my colleague from maryland, mr. raskin, about whether or not he would just say acceptable limits on abortion. if there wasn't except an exception rape and incest. can you clarify for the record the guttmacher institute is in
the arm of planned parenthood, correct? >> yes, founded as the researcher arm of planned parenthood. >> and according to the data i have less than 1% of abortions are connected to rape, less than half a percent a connected to inset, according to got back. the stat line up with your understanding? >> according to the goodbye to institute [inaudible] not doing so for reasons of fetal anonymously or life in danger with, that's a quote, in fact it's the same top reasons as first trimester abortions, which are financial hardship, relationship issues, and not feeling ready to be appeared, which are all issues where we, as a caring nation and as loving communities, can come alongside the woman. >> and so, i think it merits conversation, again, to your point, yes or no, do you believe that your answer was, the after from mr. raskin, would it be a yes or no, it would be, don't correct it? >> would be no. >> not accept limits on abortion. even if you accepted the one [inaudible] percent that fall into that category. miss arrambide, real quick.
you make a couple of points during your testimony about texas not being a particularly hospital place, generally oh with respect to a woman as it relates to abortion and. he made a point, i think, about lack of care provided for women. is it correct i -- have information here, correct, i believe, it says that eight and a half pro pregnancy and pregnancy counseling centers for every one important clinic in the state of texas. did the legislature in passing a spirit of repeated 100 million dollars for women's health care. i guess my question here is, is in light of that, and in light of texas being an inhospitable place according to your testimony, are you aware of how many people have moved to the state of texas in the last decade? you know what the numbers? >> i don't know. >> yeah. >> i will say that the clinics you are referring to are [inaudible]
now -- >> 4 million people have moved to the state of texas in the last decade. that's the population of the entire state of alabama. have moved to the state of texas by choice in the last decade. i would tell mobile i -- would move to one another question here. ms. robinson can you -- >> cannot finish by after them about texas? >> i didn't ask you a question about that. ms. robinson, i would ask you a question. when is the latest that you have performed an abortion in terms of weeks of the number one child? >> yes, my name is dr. robinson, and i provide abortion care in alabama. so alabama has -- >> what is the hostage of the question, the latest you have performed an abortion? >> i'm going to answer your question. so it unfortunately -- >> is a number of weeks -- >> is one of the state said has passed restriction or bans on abortion care, which limits physicians like myself -- >> and another way you'd like to do it later. what is the latest you have performed an abortion? >> so since i will always follow the law and i live in the state of alabama, provide
important care option till 20 weeks just a chanel age. >> so he performed an abortion at 20 weeks. >> yes sir. >> and the procedure for an abortion, when you're talking about that 20 weeks as i understand it, is dilation and extraction. if you performed abortions at that stage and in doing so have you had a baby parts that you've had to discard or store in some capacity? >> one of the things that you all -- >> larynx? arms? [inaudible] -- >> throughout this hearing is just use inflammatory language ma'am, it's a simple question. have you had human parts, baby parts, arms, legs, as a result of an abortion performed at the time you just acknowledged -- >> i am a physician deprived abortion provider. there is nothing that you could say -- >> yes or no -- >> makes it difficult for me to talk about the case that i provide. >> so have they been baby parts, yes or no? >> if you would like for me to talk to -- >> and where and how have they've been stored -- >> for patients so -- >> the ads for the question is
obvious. there are baby parts ided over to talk about how they're being stored. you don't want to talk about putting laboratories, and see what it took a talk about putting them in pyrex dishes, you don't want to talk about the voters we have four grandparents gulf coast at houston texas, you don't want to attack by the real reality -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> if you don't mind me answering. all of that sick that you just mentioned, i have never seen that in a health care setting, ever. we don't put baby pots in freezers or pyrex dishes. i've never seen a patient -- >> i asked where you put them -- >> [inaudible] -- >> well then where do they go? >> gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes miss mcbath for five minutes. >> thank you so much, madam chair, and thank you so much to chairman nadler and thank you so much to our witnesses today. we really appreciate you being here under such duress.
like so many women in america, four years, i struggled to get pregnant. my husband and i, we tried everything that we could do to start a family of our own, and finally we were successful. i have never been so happy and i pray for this moment for so many years. i wanted to tell everyone, i just wanted to shout it from all of them often talks. for weeks, i began to dream about our life and our future together. and then one day, i woke up covered in blood. and it's hard to describe the agony of a miscarriage. it's heartbreak, it's helplessness, it's pain, and it's profound sadness. millions of women suffer from them and i've heard from many who felt guilty like i did who
felt as though that we weren't wealthy of having a child. those are the same feelings that crept through my mind and every time i've had these difficult discussions with other women i remind them that they are strong and that they are powerful beyond measure, and that they are worth is far more than their ability to procreate. however, it seems those in support of this ruling disagree. after my second miscarriage, i wondered in my grief, again, if god had decided i was never meant to be a mother. so when i finally got pregnant again, i was overjoyed. it was as if i believe that god was giving me and my husband, finally he had a plan for us to be parents. but after four months, while a
feeling of terror and trauma in my heart, i was rushed to the emergency room. there was my doctor and my husband. i learned that i had suffered a fetal demise, or a stillbirth. there, again, i was filled with anguish and thorough and guilt, and i tried so hard, and still i felt like i failed trying to be a mother. my doctor thought it would be better to, and safer, to end the pregnancy naturally, without the medicines so commonly used. so for two weeks, i carried my did fetus and waited for me to go into labor. for two weeks, people past me on the street, telling me how beautiful i looked, asking how
far along i was, and saying that they were so excited for me and my future with my child. for two weeks, i carried a lost pregnancy and the torment that comes with it. i never went into labor on my own. when my doctor finally induced me, i faced the pain of labor without hope for a living child. this is my story. it's uniquely my story. and yet it's not so unique. millions of women in america, women in this room, women at your homes, and women you love and cherish have suffered a miscarriage. and so i ask, on behalf of
these women, after which failed pregnancy should i have been imprisoned? we just have been after the first miscarriage? after doctors used what would be an illegal drug to abort the lost fetus? would you have put me in jail after the second miscarriage? perhaps that would have been the time, forced to reflect in confinement at the guilt i felt, the guilt that so many women feel after losing their pregnancies. or would you have put me behind bars after my stillbirth? after i was forced to carry it did feel just four weeks, after asking got above [inaudible] ever going to be able to raise a child. and i ask both of the same medicine used to treat my failed pregnancies is the same interest in states like texas would make illegal. i ask, because if alabama makes
abortion murder, does it make miscarriage manslaughter? i asked because i want to know if the next woman who has a miscarriage at three months, if she will be forced to carry her dead fetus to term. so, for the women in your life, whose stories you do not know, for the women across the countries who lives human not understand, and for the women in america who have gone through things you simply cannot comprehend, i say to you this. women's rights are human rights. reproductive health care's health care. and medical decisions should be made by women and those that they trust, not politicians and officials. we have a choice. we can be the nation that rolls back the clock, that rolls back the rights of women and that strips them of their very
liberty, or we can be the nation of choice, the nation where every woman can make her own choice. freedom is our right to choose. >> the gentlelady yields back. mr. bishop. >> well, thank you. mrs. caroline said a few moments ago that this hearing was called because of an imminent peril to the right of abortion. professor goodwin, i guess you're the only witness presented by the majority is having the expertise in the law. do you unequivocally condemned the leak of the draft opinion? >> it is absolutely unprecedented that there is a lead and it is a story, it is not the story of these hearings. but that is unprecedented. >> i didn't -- [inaudible] factual [inaudible] maybe we've both covered that. i'm interested, as a matter of your expertise, do you condemn it, was it wrong to link the opinion? >> i will leave that -- i will leave that for justice
[inaudible] be able to deliberate privately. and i think that at least such as this make that difficult. >> thank you. so dr. robinson, i noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she her pronouns. you're a medical doctor. what's a woman? >> it's important for you to understand why i said i use she her pronouns -- >> well i -- i was really explaining why i'm asking the question. but i'm just going to let you answer the question. what is a woman? >> i think it's important that we educate people like you about why we are doing the things that we do. and so the reason that i use she and her pronouns is because i understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. and i think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called. >> thanks for that -- >> so it's important that we respect each individual program person -- >> i go to our democracy? can you answer my question, what's a woman? >> i'm a woman.
and i will ask you, what friends do you use? if you tell me that you use she and her pronouns, i'm going to answer you, i'm going to call you mr. bishop. i'm going to respect you for how you want me to address you. >> i'm just saying, so you give me an example of a woman. you say that you are a woman. can you tell me, otherwise, can you tell me what a woman is? >> yes, i'm telling you, i'm a woman. >> is that a -- set as comprehensive a definition that you can give me? >> that's as comprehensive a definition is i will give you today. because i think it's important that we focus on what we are here for agents to talk about access to abortion. >> i see so you're not interested [inaudible] in answering the questions that i ask unless it's part of the message you want to deliver is. that right? >> i'm sorry. because i was talking, and you are talking [inaudible] -- >> yes ma'am [inaudible] it's my time. [inaudible] ask your questions, that's the purpose of it, i ask you, to uncover things by asking you questions and ask eager to respond to. so you're not willing to answer a question on this is part of the course you wish to deliver, is that correct?
>> sir, whatever is trying to explain to you is that i had to difficult time here were given, since we were talking at the same time. >> [inaudible] moon arrambide is, is that a pretty close a proclamation of the pronunciation? >> arrambide. >> arrambide. okay. what do you say a woman's? >> i believe that everyone can identify for themselves. >> okay. do you believe, then, that men can become pregnant and have abortions? >> yes. >> professor goodwin, the draft opinion says this, in part -- the court has no authority to decree that and erroneous president is permanently exempt from evaluation under traditional stare decisis principles. and here is the president is the norm, but not an inexorable command. if the rule [inaudible] applies, iranians decisions like plus the unlocked would
still be in law. close quote. professor, isn't that inevitably true? must be that all proud decisions of the court are subject to evaluation. >> it is certainly the case that we have in this leg fee of this court [inaudible] the ferguson [inaudible] board of education. so the ability to be able to review is in part the ability to be able to review its. another thing when this supreme court then strips away fundamental protections that have been made particularly given that the justice who may be involved in the [inaudible] suggest that they actually be [inaudible] president of stare decisis associated with roe. and we were not talking about oh plessy v. ferguson [inaudible] respect that when they [inaudible] start decisive. >> [inaudible] the second ball to reevaluation
as plessy we, would you agree? >> they haven't would be for the expanded and they have been. so one of the things we haven't talked about is that [inaudible] even just a couple of years ago, [inaudible] this supreme court used to further uphold the principle of roe v. wade and also ensure [inaudible] i hold up, my time has expired. >> gentleman's yield back, miss escobar. >> thank you, mister chairman. i want to thank my witnesses. it has been really challenging to this to my republican colleagues essentially minimize and in fact completely ignore how difficult decisions like this are for women all over the country. it's even more difficult to listen to them act as they know better for women white women, how women should plan their future.
and the fact that they believe they should be the ones to stand between a woman and her talk to. it is shocking to me how backward this thinking is, and the dog days they want to return women to. i want to share a story, briefly, of someone close to me. once the supreme court draft was made public, you mother, an incredible mother approached me to share with me her story of her abortion. she was pregnant with her third child. she and her husband were excited about this baby. they bought a quid, they prepared the room, and they were fortunate -- i mean, she was in a stable marriage and the stable family. they had means to provide for their baby, and so they were making plans for this baby. in her final trimester, she heard the horrific news that
her baby was not viable. and then she learned that if she carried the baby to term, she would likely tie, leaving her kids motherless, leaving her husband without a partner, without a wife. and so she made the decision to terminate a pregnancy that she wanted and had planned for. she had to undergo this procedure at a clinic, and the very same people here who are of the belief that they should tell women how to live their lives and use up the authority of a physician, it was those types of people standing outside that clinic who were jeering and taunting this morning mother, this mother who couldn't even mourn the loss of her baby because she had to
hear the screams of people judging her and yelling at her. you know, to those who think, those in america who believe that my extreme maga colleagues aren't coming for you, they are coming for you. they are coming for your rights. we have heard today absolute proof that they want to ban abortion across the united states. so let that be absolutely clear. there is no state where government forced births won't be happening. and if samuel alito tells you they are not coming for you, just remember, this is a supreme court majority that lied to congress and lied to the american people. so it is a majority without integrity. and remember that the people who are trying to stand between you and your doctor are the same people who voted against
paid family and medical leave so that mamas could stay home with their babies. they are the same people who voted against access to childcare so mamas could go to work to provide for their babies. these are the same people who voted against universal pre-k so that mamas a could give their babies a fighting chance at an education. these are the same people who put guns ahead of the lives of school children because school children, as we know, go to school in terror. their parents send their kids to school, terrified that their kids might not come home. these are the same people who champion trump policies of a family separation. so let's remember who the people in congress are who support families and to value mothers and babies. if we want to reduce abortions
then we would provide free contraception and widely accepted sex education. but there are against that too. dr. robinson, i want to ask you, because your voice, they have been trying to obscure your voice and your message, speaking over you. in the remaining 30 seconds, anything you'd like to correct the record on? >> yes. one of the things that i want to say was there is no doubt in my mind about life. i understand that once a sperm meets an egg that there is the potential for life. i do also understand that some people believe that life begins at conception and some people feel that it begins at a different point. i think what we need to consider is that what goes into that is everybody's belief system, their upbringing, their values.
and we should respect that. and for those people who feel like life begins at conception, i welcome them to never have an abortion ever in their life. and we should respect that. but i also feel that they should respect the decisions of people who do decide that an abortion is what's right for them and for their families. >> thank you. >> and i am so sorry that, you know, about the situation with the person you spoke about, who had to go to an abortion clinic and face the harassment and the jury as she went in and her [inaudible] child. my patients faced out on a daily basis, because she could not get that air got care in the hospital, even when there is a complicated pregnancy. so this is the reality for many of our patients. >> thank you so much, dr. robinson. to the american people watching at home, remember, they are coming for you too. i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. mr. owns. >> thank you, mister chairman. last week, at the senate banking committee hearing,
treasury secretary janet yellen testified to restrict abortions would have been very damaging effect to the economy. and she took the position of representing teenagers, low income women and minorities. secretary yellen argued that the ending the life of unborn child is a good thing for the labor force participation rate. since i'm very aware of the founder of proud planned parenthood, margaret singer, i find the parroting offer manifesto by secretary yellen, the devaluation of life of an on board, poor black and minority children, as a very concerning. i've also been aware of a singers 1946 book, the negro project, in which she shared her vision of poor blacks and other modalities. and i quote, the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction often effective stop. those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of american civilization. , and quote. she was a favorite, and by the way, of the white supremacist
kkk speaking circuit. where she sat up her first abortions fraught testified to her mission. it wasn't like harlem in 1921. these are the words of a radical races founder of planned parenthood. as [inaudible] global abortion cartel, and has been responsible for the deaths and -- that's going to be a legacy -- of the death of tens of millions of black babies and other children. thank goodness that sent to give scott, upon hearing that statement for secretary yellen, called it bob for what it was -- biased, calculate colors, and calculated. i [inaudible] single mother that there is dignity in all work and dignity in all life. an op-ed published in yesterday's washington post, senator scott wrote, and i quote, we live in a world where words are too often disconnected from the lives experience of many americans. yes it's cold and robotic reference to the issue of life
is just the latest example of that, in court. secretary yellen's comments is also deeply offensive to be. for years the black community has been disproportionately targeted by the abortionist industry. of what should happen. we lost over 20 million black babies over the last 40 years. that's 40% of my race exterminated before being given the chance to bless our nation with the unique talents. based on her conclusion that their demise is a good thing for a labor force [inaudible] participation rate. secretary yellen has obviously concluded that these 20 billion black lives would have been and economic drain on our society. it 2017 report by the light issues is today found that at 88% applied parent who would make a centers targeted women of color, with 80% specifically targeting black communities, at 50% targeting hispanic and latino communities. for those who love the cost concept of equity, in everything under the sun, including test score outcomes, when it comes to the death of our on board, abortion equity seems to be pretty racist to be.
abortion is not health care. health care doesn't result in the [inaudible] death over over 60 million human beings. [inaudible] dignity and worth of every individual, and their god given right to life. if a woman feels that an abortion is her only invest option, i believe that women has been, has been failed by her family, her partner, her community, and her health care providers. of the father of six children and 16 grandchildren. my pride comes from the joy of watching that grow and start families of their own, even if their circumstances aren't perfect or, as missiles young would have us believe, an economic burden. now, two of my beautiful, loving, talented children born after by [inaudible] career, after i lost everything due to a failed business, not after a brief job stint as a chimney sweep and security guard. thank goodness i was raised by a generation of proud black americans who taught me that america, our french laws a financial status does not define us and can be temporary. our children and family relationships on the other hand are not only eternal but an
invaluable treasure in our brief time on this earth. they are the only legacy [inaudible] i looked at really better. the children of the most precious gift some lessons from a loving god. the fight to defend life has never been more important. the fight to defend the funding ideas of a nation that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by our, their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, has never been more important. i ask for unanimous consent to place senator scott washington, washington times all but entitled, abortion is not the way to help single black mothers, on the record. the last few seconds i have, miss foster, do you have any comments that you would like to add to the record? >> that brought me to tears. amen to everything you just said. i would just say when it comes to helping mothers in difficult situations, a living in poverty, go ask planned parenthood if
they provide diapers or formula or career or rent assistance or food or bill assistance or counseling or member grants or continuing education. you know, and then compare that to what pregnancy care centers offer. and then come tell me that pro-lifers are the ones that don't care for children after the airborne. give me a break. >> thank you. the legacy of [inaudible] will be her death. that's what she should be known for. thanks so much for the. >> mister chairman i have an immense risk is that. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman is the recognized for a unanimous cause that. >> if i could just enter into the record the letter we received [inaudible] of obstetricians and gynecologists. >> without objection. >> mr. [inaudible] . >> thank you very much, mister chair. like most of my colleagues have shocked to learn the news that the draft decision in dumps fee jackson women south had leaked from the supreme court. as i read that opinion my shot turned to disbelief. and why disbelieve turned to outrage. it's been nearly 50 years since
the court decided roe v. wade. and in that half century, the american people have recognized the constitutional right to an abortion, the constitutional right to make an informed and medical decision with their doctor. the constitutional right to exercise control of their own body. the american people support that right. i have learned during my time in public life that although there are a wide ranging personal opinions about abortion, most americans believe that the government has no business getting between a woman and her doctor. they believe that government has no business to force a woman who does not want to be pregnant to remain pregnant. they know at their core that it is wrong and morally reprehensible for the government to force a victim of sexual assault to carry her rapist child. that is what is at stake. if roe it's overturned as we
expect it will be, that would be the future for women in many states. including my states, arizona. arizona's governor has signed an anti abortion law that provides no safe harbor for victims of rape or incest. some state legislatures working with the anti row activists are gearing up to go even further. outlawing abortion altogether. the american people do not want that. they support roe. they support the right to choose to have an emotion. in my state, which is equally split among party lines, more than 70% of voters oppose making abortion illegal. that might explain why up to this point my republican colleagues have been more concerned with the leak itself then what's the draft decision actually says. and what it would mean for our country. this issue is about choice. it is about self determination.
it is about liberty. americans believe in those freedoms. they rely upon them. and that is why the fight to protect them is so important. should the draft opinion become the decision of the supreme court, the rationale used to overturn roe could easily be used to undermine other fundamental rights. including the right to access contraception and the right to marry who you love. today we have heard so many misstatements and attacks on our esteemed panel of witnesses. i wanted to give the remainder of my time to dr. robertson or professor goodwin to correct the record and respond to any of the comments that have been made here today. >> i'll start. yes, in the comments today there has been the suggestion that other pierre -- subconscious action would not be rolled back.
here's what i want to share. on sunday may 8th, mississippi governor, refused to rule out potential to ban some forms of contraception with the court overrules roe v. wade. in idaho, in an interview on may 5th with the idaho public television. republican state representative claims that he would hold healings on legislations banning about anti contraception and abortion pills. tennessee governor -- on dispensing of abortion pills including that medication be provided by qualified physicians. who we've also seen in the last week or so, they begin to criminalize and punish abortion as homicide. to allow prosecutors to criminally charge patients. and that is just the beginning. i could go through a list of even deeper and longer than that. >> thank you so much.
dr. robinson, do you have anything to add? >> i guess one of the opportunity just to clear up the record. there has been lots of mention like, or it's been suggested that, women, pregnant people, are callously making the decision to just terminate the pregnancy at random points in the pregnancy. i think that as a person who provides abortion care, my patients, when they come in, it is very clear they are very thoughtful in this decision. and as we said, many abortions do take place in the first trimester. however, abortion care needs to be accessible as a pregnancy progresses. sometimes, that maybe later in the pregnancy. i know that it's hard for people to imagine those circumstances where a person may have to choose to end a pregnancy later in gestation. and that's why we should leave that to the professionals, to the medical doctors, and to the patient. also, to suggest that we need to put restrictions in place in
order to keep passing bands. as if we would perform an abortion without obtaining consent. that's part of what we do as medical professionals. there is no other procedure, not even removing a tonal, that we do without obtaining proper informed consent. there is deformed incision making that goes into the carey provide. that's -- without representatives having its key passing bands and putting these in place. >> thank you, i yield back. >> i apologize. gentleman is recognized the excuse that respects into the next one. >> thank you, this is a letter to the members of the house committee on judiciary for student for life action. without objection. >> mister chairman, thank you very much. this is terrific that in many ways that we are having this hearing. this is going to be the beginning point where the american people are really going to see the details behind roe v. wade. they are going to see the details behind this rather than
a couple talking points. they are going to understand i believe better what is all happening behind this issue. i've heard the incendiary rhetoric at times that abortions are all going to be outlawed. they are coming for you. various things like this. i would share with you and wisconsin state senate that i served in for nearly ten years just seven years ago. we passed a 20-week bill. while i would have probably chosen to go to a little different place than a 20-week bill, that is what we passed. with the consensus of the representatives, of the people, of the state of wisconsin. my colleague from arizona just cited that i come from a state that's evenly split. where the definition of an evenly split state in wisconsin. we came to, seven years ago, that we should be at 20 weeks. the most important thing is, the representatives of the people of the state of wisconsin, we're debating it. since roe v. wade has happened,
here is what we have -- >> -- >> as long as your take my minutes. >> this is the united states of america. why should the rights of a citizen of the panel which date they live in? that's my question. >> the rights of the people of the united states should be carried. those rights should be, first of all, they are imbued by our creator at the founding. but then it is up to the will of the people. that is what role circumvented. that circumvented the will of the people. it was a judge made law. not law of the people of our country. anyhow, if i may continue.
since roe v. wade, here's what we've learned. look at these billboards that you see all across the country. at six weeks, at six weeks, a child has a heartbeat. they have a heartbeat in that womb. 15 weeks, they can feel pain. we largely didn't know that i don't think at roe. some doctors may know better than i do. that's something we didn't know. the medical technology in last 15 years is incredible. it is incredible what has happened. what has shown us the humanity of that baby that is in the mother's room. so, so much has changed. that is why, that's part of the reason why, i think you seen justices come, what appears to be, they're going to come to a different conclusion here. rather than this judge made law back in 1973. i want to share something here right now that should be deeply concerning to all of us. i hope the chairman and others
left at the wisconsin family action offices in madison. that, as you can see, in the picture behind, me was firebombed shortly after the release. the release of the opinion. okay. go ahead. [inaudible] >> you are all going to burn. you think you're following the will of jesus? we are following the double act. you are evil people trying to
control other people's lives. the next time that goes off, i hope it doesn't yeah -- i hope it doesn't mess. i hope you all burn. law >> i am sorry for the language that is contained in that. there are multiple messes sentient in the same vein to the wisconsin family action. and advocacy group that just advocates for life. this will happen to their building. i hope the attorney general of the united states is going to enforce the laws protecting our justices as they, people attempt, to a terminate them. i hope the attorney general protects wisconsin family action as i hope no more groups. a group in madison wisconsin has said this is going to be the summer of rage in madison, wisconsin. i hope everyone rises up and
says, that is not acceptable. what should be normal discourse here in the united states of america. i hope the attorney general is paying attention and he does not treat the wisconsin family action consul like he treated parents before school boards. >> the time and the gentleman has expired. >> i'll yield back, mister chairman. >> the gentleman reads back. >> miss garcia? >> thank you for our leadership and convening this wet utterly could be the most important and impactful hearing. we will hold for generations to come. as a catholic, my faith and the love for others that we preach, i have to support the freedom for women to make a deeply personal and private decision about their own health care. as a catholic and christian, i am not one to judge, punish, or shame someone who has decided to have an abortion.
as catholics, we are taught, as jesus, did to treat those going through an easy times with kindness and compassion. freedom has no gender. it is not wrapped in pink or baby blue. freedom is for all. government has no place in imposing itself on a women's freedom in making her own private, personal decision when it comes to her pregnancy. abortion's health care. abortion is a human right, period. the public agrees, recent polls found that 80% of american people believed that abortion should be safe and legal. washington post similarly found 75% support protecting roe. in my own district, we did a survey of over 40,000 people. keep in mind, mister chairman,
my district is 77% latino. 40,000 on our tax survey, 76% said they favored haven't women's rights to have a safe, legal abortion. the justices may ignore, lawmakers may ignore the public. true justice and freedom means ensuring abortion care is safe, available, and affordable for all. i like to start with the doctor here. i had already told her, i was going to ask her a question, during the break. have you heard of the lasalle herrera case in south texas? she was a young woman who self induced abortion, she had some problems, went to a hospital. the hospital reported her. the da charged her with murder. she had to stay two days in jail until she was bonded, half 1 million dollar bond.
>> i'm not familiar the details on that. if we get rid of roe v. wade which what's the goal is for the republican party. the supreme supreme court justices, then we may go to a situation where we criminalize the care that you and many provide. for instance, here, the hospital was the one who reported her. in texas, trigger law, once roe v. wade is overturned, in 30 days it, there is a complete ban. if a provider provides any services or aids and abets, they could be charged with a felony. a felony. as a provider yourself, what do you think, what is your opinion on this criminalization of abortion care? or health care? i think it's quite devastating i think it's quite devastating and i think it's going to be
harmful to patients. if the real goal is to protect women, this is doing exactly the opposite. it puts physicians in the situation where they're not looking out for the best interests of the patients. they are having to take their own interest, their own freedom into consideration. so it's going to harm its, going to harm people. >> it is. and do you think it will have a chilling effect that some people, some doctors and providers, hospital workers won't even want to provide some of the care, even in terms of emergencies? >> oh, absolutely. i'm already seeing that. and we are not post row yet -- >> unfortunately, war in texas as, the other witnesses pointed out. >> you're right. and that is a very unfortunate. but even in alabama, we are not near that there yet. and we've had patients that have come in, that have got medication that was illegal for care that they needed. and their physician was unable to see them [inaudible] and following that medication. they were afraid that they were breaking the law. and that's going to happen time
and time again. >> to quickly switched through the professor. professor, have you heard our governor suggest that what we need to look at [inaudible] that we can overturn long, 49 year history of law, that we should look at the case that tells us in texas and around others around the state, the country, that all children must be educated, regardless of their immigration status? [inaudible] we have a white supremacist in tennessee saying, well, we could overturn roe, let's overturned brown v. board of education is. that's where we're going? what is next? >> that's what's next is [inaudible] what the state legislators are saying, what do you have just said is what would be debated in those state legislatures and may become law. >> that's most unfortunate. mister chairman, and there's so much more i could say. i will be submitting additional questions for the record. and with that, i yield back. i think my time has expired. >> gentlelady eels back. mister pence.
>> thank you, mister chair. i want to begin by thanking the witnesses for participating in such a challenging hearing. and this hearing is obviously intended to provide an opportunity for the majority to call out the supreme court, that is to intimidate and bully the court as it works to address one of the most difficult issues any judge will ever face. it's also an opportunity for all of us to ask the american people to avoid the violence and -- on either side -- and to let the process work. and this hearing today, although i wish we where you have to get based upon a leaked memo, is evidence of the process working. sometimes it works slowly. it's taken 50 years for this issue to come before the court. and the process, though, does work. the committee has engaged in a
lot of discussion about republicans being pro-life. it's only natural that we republicans should take this opportunity to call out exactly where the democrats stand on the issue. and i think the best means of doing that is by drawing attention to the women's health protection act. mrs. foster, joe manchin said that his party bill is not roe versus wade cota fixation, but instead it dramatic expansion of roe v. wade. could you comment? >> that's correct. and the very same sentence where he said he would support codification, he said that he could not support the women's health protection act -- so called -- because it was so dramatically expand roe v. wade and the regime of legalized abortion that we've had in our nation. it wiped out more than 500 laws protecting women and children. >> it would, we did not, federalize the abortion issue, taking it away from the states, and impose, if you will, the
right to abortion from the time of conception until the time of birth? is that correct? >> absolutely, shielded. >> and so there were some that suggested even on your panel that partial birth abortion, infanticide, just doesn't happen. but indeed, under that act, it would be allowed. am i right? >> it would. >> can you go into more detail? >> under this act, under this potential law, partial birth abortion would be on the table. pretty much anything else that you could think of that we've worked for 49 years to protect in the days since roll, we've had to enact all these hundreds of separate laws to protect women and children after row wiped all of the abortion laws off the books in all 50 states, going beyond what any state had on the books at that time. and so, this act would go even further than that. it would force doctors to do
abortions, it would allow for abortion up to the moment of birth. it would strip away any kind of been informed consent protection, any kind of parental notification, much less consent, any kind of health and safety standards. it goes against 50 years of conscience laws, 50 years of protections. that's what's taking us back. >> and just to make sure the workers quit, we're talking about the women's health protection act? >> yes. >> and to make it clear again, the assertion that partial birth abortion and even infanticide does not occur was not recognized in that bill. in other words, it's still allowed. is that correct? >> it would still be allowed, yes. >> thank you. with that, mister chair, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. [inaudible] . >> mister chairman, thank you for holding this very urgent hearing today, and to all of
our witnesses, thank you for your testimony, your very powerful, moving testimony. a lot has been said today. and i've got a set of remarks, questions. i just want to address a few things first. the first thing is, i share in the outrage of my colleague, veronica escobar, who said earlier today that what we are hearing from our republican colleagues, this attempt to seize the bodies of women in this country, is outlandish, and it would not be happening if the roles were reversed. i mean, can you imagine trying to regulate the health care decisions of men in this country? i know so many guys who don't even like being told to clean up after themselves, or to turn the tv down. and so the idea that we would have this concentrated effort to legislate a ban on the ability of women to simply make decisions about their own health care is absurd on its face.
it is obviously going back in time to a place where i had hoped that we had gotten past. and it's something that is hypocritical because the opposite would never be allowed to take place if the shoe was on the other foot. mr. owens, who is a nice guy, also made some outlandish comments earlier. and he leveraged the fact that he was black in order to validate those comments, which was a bit disturbing to be. it was also -- as an african american myself. it is simply the case that if the republican party cared about life, my republican colleagues would be working with me to pass the george floyd justice in policing act to end police brutality in black communities. if the republican party of today compare cared about life, they would be working with us to extend the expanded child tax credit, which for a time, cut child poverty in this
country in half. if the republican party cared about life, it would not be actively trying to undermine or outright overturn the affordable care act, which has provided high quality affordable health care for tens of millions more people in this country within who had it prior to the democratic congress is enactment of that legislation under barack obama. and so i think it's important to clarify the record when it comes to these issues. professor goodman, at this committee's markup last week, and again in today's hearing, a number of my republican colleagues celebrated the criminalization of abortion as a win for democracy. on the supreme court justice alito blame the very people whose rights he intends to erase, as we saw in his draft opinion. he wrote, women are not without electoral or political power. but professor goodwin, in your written testimony, you wrote, it is offensively naive to suggest that these matters can be resolved at the state level
through voting, particularly when voting rights are unprotected and voter suppression dominates the political process. so since my republican colleagues don't seem to get it, would you help explain why it's so wrong for republicans to blame women for the gop's own war on abortion rights, in light of the war on the voting rights of people of color? thank you. >> that's right. well thank you so much for that question. in fact, we should not blame women. we should not be blaming women in mississippi who, if there are black, risk 118 times more likely to die by bringing a pregnancy to term then might happen in a portion, the state in which 80% of the cardiac death in that state during pregnancy happened to be black women, a state that historically has disenfranchised black people, first through enslavement and forced reproduction of black women, and then even after the 13th amendment, enacted so many
jim crow era laws that did not get dismantled until the mid part of the last century, and a state that has tried with all of it might to continue to suppress the right of black people to vote, many of whom are famously talked about being beaten after she attempted to vote, where in the best-case scenario, black people head to [inaudible] bubbles on a bar of soap or jelly beans in the jar in order to be able to vote. this is why this is not just jim crow, this is the new jim crow. and it fails [inaudible] to pay any attention to the lives, historically or the president, of black women. and that is a part of this that is absolutely shameful. >> thank you for that. the nation that my republican colleagues what is terrifying. a handful of unelected, unaccountable far right the supreme court justices encouraging states to seize control of the bodies and decision-making power of women across america. politicians forcing women to give birth.
the government imprisoning patients and their doctors. apparently tamar republican colleagues, this is what democracy looks like. but i would submit that the american people know better. that's not democracy, that's servitude. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. fitzgerald. >> thank you, mister chair. thanks to the witnesses today. over the past year and a half, we watched president biden and the democrats continually push an anti level agenda. first, they gutted the hyde amendment, long-standing provision of appropriation bills that prevents taxpayer funding for abortions and has saved an estimated 2 million life. then the biden administration and his department of health and human services change their rules to essentially provide require health care providers to provide abortions despite any moral objections they might have. they prevented the house from
voting on common says pieces of legislation such as born alive abortions, survivors protection act. this bill would ensure that babies who survive abortions are provided with medical care. and finally, my democrat colleagues passed a radical bill that removed existing limits on abortion and allows abortion on demand, no matter the age of the baby. the party who once claimed that they wanted abortion to be, quote, safe, legal and rare, now stands for abortion on demand up until birth and funded by taxpayers. last week, i joined my colleagues in the wisconsin republican delegation in sending a letter to attorney general garland, calling on him to investigate the arson at the family action office in madison, over to my colleague, mr. tiffany, spoke about earlier. we need to make sure that we prevent similar attacks in the future.
rather than focusing on defusing threats against americans for their political beliefs, the department has in the last 17 months been silent on or encouraged further partisan targeting. i myself will always push back on their anti-life stances with a clear and strong message of opposition. and i have, as a state legislator, for 27 years. i believe that every human life is precious and should be protected at every stage. if the leak supreme court opinion ends up being the final product and overturn roe v. wade, it would be a fantastic victory for life and for the babies. the pro-life movement has spent decades working on this movement. this is not a complete nationwide ban on abortion. like i said, i've passed hundreds of bills, pro-life bills, at the state level. elected officials rather than
unelected judges will state abortion policy based on where good decides incident found. we've used in the womb deserve legal protection and deserve the basic human right to life. unborn children out six weeks have a heartbeat, and by 15 weeks, and can feel pain and have human features such as knows, loops, and eyebrows. even if states choose to ban abortions with limited to no exceptions, the value of human life is not determined by the circumstances of his or her conception and abortions carried out following these horrific crimes only compound the crisis that the mother's. enduring >> florida on yet another missing victim. there are two lives at stake here, not one. the pro-life movement has always been committed to serving mothers and children with pregnancy care centers and alternatives to abortion programs.
miss foster, even some of the most liberal constitutional scholars, including ruth bader ginsburg have been critical of roe's shaky if not nonexistent constitutional standing. can you discuss some of the constitutional errors the supreme court made in the roe and casey cases, and how those may be corrected in the dobbs case? >> absolutely. as of july, 2021, we americans unite for life have compiled more than 30 pages of scholarly criticism of roe from the left and right. explaining just how and more did in the constitution roe and casey are. we do hope that w the case that casey was. it will correct the errors of not finding the right to life in the constitution. but also finding this purported right to abortion that in a decade since even the courts
haven't been able to quite get grasp of. as it changed the test and the framework from roe casey. even in the last few years with -- the undue burden standard has been up in the air. it has gotten pushed back and forth in the court. >> very good, thank you very much. >> garment yields back. mr. lieu? >> thank you, chairman adler. i listened carefully to the stories of the witnesses today. thank you for your time and representing. i heard this arrambide, miss foster, the doctor robinson. they are all different. that is a point, isn't it? all women have different experiences. two of you gave different testimony. because, doc robinson, miss
arrambide, you did not try to impose your experience on anybody else. you don't tell women to get an abortion. you don't tell them not to get an abortion. you leave that emotional difficult, searing nuanced complicated life-changing decision to the woman to her family, to her god, to her doctor. maga republicans want to criminalize abortion. they want to take that decision away from the american people. they want to put women in jail for making that decision. they want to put doctors in jail for helping women get an abortion. they want to help, anyone want to help a woman get an abortion, in texas, can be sued by their neighbor. this is a radical agenda. really, the question is not,
well, i don't know, when has light begun? it is, who makes that decision? do you want maga politicians making that decision? or do you want the women to make that decision and consultation with her, faith and family. i conception, 12 hours later, it is still a single cell. is that human being? is that a person? 30 hours later, it splits into two cells. is that human being, is that a person? 45 hours later, it wasn't for cells. now some women, they will decide that is a person, and they will craig carry the pregnancy to turn. some will not. and that should be the decision of the woman with her faith, with her family, with her doctor. not a maga politician. that is really the issue here. whose decision is this? is it government pay, or is it
the women's decision, in consultation with her doctor, her fate, her god? i submit that it is the women's decision, because that is what the american public overwhelming debate leaves. only 20% support overturning roe v. wade. i would now turn to the legal issues and roe v. wade, specifically the legal issues of what of the supreme court justices, misled the american public. if you look at at the draft opinion, the draft opinion says, roe was egregiously wrong from the start. so, professor goodwin, i have a question to you. are the five conservatives justices that purport lee signed on this draft opinion, did any of them say roe was egregiously wrong from start in the confirmation hearing? >> no, they did not. in fact, what did justice alito say? guess what he said, roe v. wade
is an important president of the supreme court. that is what he said. do our justice gorsuch saying right was wrong on the start? >> no, i do not. >> this is actually wet justice courses that in his commission on earth. he said, i would tell you that roe v. wade signed a 1973 is a president of united states supreme court. a good judge will consider, where the treatment of president like any other. professor goodwin, do you remember brett kavanaugh saying roe was egregiously wrong for the start? >> now, he did not. in fact, this is what brett kavanaugh said under oath to the american people and the u.s. senate. he said, it is settled as a president of the supreme court. entitled respect under principle of law -- the supreme court has recognized a right to abortion
since the roe v. wade case. it has reaffirmed it many times. multiple conservative supreme court justices misled the american people in order to get power. to get confirmed. and now, you're going to have this radical decision imposed on the american people, taking away that very complicated emotional, searing, nuanced decision from the american people. we will not let that stand. i yield back. >> the german league's back. >> thank you, mister chairman, for holding this hearing. as we near the conclusion of this hearing, i think it would be helpful to re-enter the conversation on, but i believe, is the front paddle issue we are discussing today. which is really, freedom. freedom for a woman to make her own health care decisions. that freedom is really at the core, the issue we are
discussing today. my friends on the other side of the aisle like to say that there's too much government regulation when it comes to public health measures. yes, apparently, would like to regulate intimate decisions like pregnancy. and deprive women of the freedom to make their own health care decisions. as my colleague, representative stanton said, the constitutional right to make an informed, medical decision. unfortunately, many republicans have made quite clear when it comes to health and medical decisions, their beliefs matter more than the families they claimed to represent. i do think, i don't want to repeat much of what has been said, a robust debate. all of the witnesses, i thank them for their testimony today. i don't necessarily want to repeat the comments my colleagues. perhaps, mr. johnson, will engage me in a brief colloquy if he hasn't had an opportunity to talk in quite some time. i guess the question i have, my understanding, obviously, the
opinion, we don't know whether not the final opinion or not. my understanding of your position is that you are supportive of a holding that enables the states to make determinations as to abortion regulations. >> that was the case before roe and 73. given that, would you be supportive of a federal abortion ban? >> there is no right to abortion in the constitution. it's not a text, the structure, the original meaning, intense. as the draft opinion points out very well, on the, right as you all know, when the right is not included in the constitution, that decision, the the question falls to the people. they to make that decision at the close level possible, through their elected representatives. the states had that ability, they did so before roe, that's where we'll happen again. >> what does that mean? does that mean, yes or no? on the federal portion. dan >> well, there be a lot of discussion about that. no one has drawn that
conclusion. in my, state in louisiana, when roe is overturned, we become 100 percent a pro-life state. we did the heavy work when i was in the legislature there, bring in the state statutes, we have a straight clause, we admitted our constitution in 2020. my state, and i think 18 others will have that decision resolved. and then there will be a very robust debate on the other states. we will see what happens. >> i appreciate your answer. i would, say i appreciate your articulation of louisiana construction of their abortion regulations, your colleagues, many of your colleagues, have been much more forward and acknowledging they would like to see a federal abortion ban. maybe dr. robertson cannot be on this point. i think as part of what's off skated much of this debate. this discussion that the potential decision will lead this matter to the state. which scares the reality that many republicans, including central mcconnell, have left the door open to a potential
federal ban on abortion. i guess, dr. robinson, maybe you can expand a bit about what that would mean for states like colorado. as you may be aware, i'm not the state of colorado. in colorado, we have quantified be a state statute the right, the freedom to be able to make these health care decisions. as well as in the state constitution. but it seems pretty clear to me, i'd be interested in your thoughts, that this is not a matter that ultimately my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have any intent of leading to the states. >> from all of the legislation that has been passed over the last several years. since i became a provider. it looks like it has been very clear that the direction that they are trying to lead us in is there for them to be no access to abortion care. i'm not a legal scholar. as legislation passes, we have to constantly rely on attorneys who can give us guidance about how we can continue to care for
patients. my understanding is the states that have protections in place for abortion care, they will be overwhelmed with patients who are able to leave their communities to access care. in a state like my own, alabama, people will no longer have access to that care. >> i think that's correct. of course, if in fact my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who believe that our federal abortion bans to be enacted at the federal level, ultimately gain power of the federal government, that of course, would be potentially a ban nationwide. i am running out of time. i will briefly say to dr. robinson, i also wanted to ask you about black maternal health. the reality in the united states, as you know, we have the highest maternal mortality rate compared with other wealthy industrialized countries. in addition, in particular, when it comes to black women,
the statistics and women of color are even worse. you, of course, are a doctor. i know you are an expert in this area. i wonder if you have any final words or thoughts of wisdom as to what the congress can do with respect to improving maternal health outcomes. >> your time is expired, the witness may answer the question. >> the things we could do, i encourage you to pass legislation that will protect access to abortion care. continue to center the people, the providers, who need access to this care. and you just look at ways that we can expand access to health care. not looking at, including, reducing restrictions on insurance coverages for people to access the care that they need. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you mister chairman, thank you for calling this important meeting on an extraordinary question of our time. i have to thank all of the witnesses for being here, for
offering your heartfelt expertise and experience. and heartfelt thoughts. i am thinking a lot about our past, present, and future. and paraphrasing something you are all going to be familiar with, first they came to the jews, i did not speak out. because i am not jewish. then they came for the immigrants, and i did not speak out, because i was not an immigrant. then they came for black people, and i did not speak out, because i am not black. then i came from my daughters, my granddaughters, and me, and there was no one left to speak for us. of course, i am paraphrasing, 1946 against the nazi thanking and values. yet, the argument applies today. there is so many things that americans are at risk of losing because people are not speaking out. republicans are targeting our right to privacy, the right to control our bodies, and it is not a new story.
let me tell you a story i have told often. i thought it was a relic, a sad relic, of the past. my mother in law did not know her own mother. she was the youngest of six children. born in 1930s scranton. catholic scranton. her mother became pregnant with a seventh child. the doctors knew that the child would be stillborn and warned that the mother would likely die in childbirth. it was 1930s scranton. the family had no choice. the mother took the stillborn baby to term. of course, the baby was stillborn, the mother die. orbiting six children, my mother never knew her own mother. she told that story so it would never happen again. to warn that it must never happen again. dr. robinson, would it be possible that those stories of the past would become our future? >> it seems quite plausible that might be the case.
>> it scares me, i have to admit to you. what are some of the risks that women suffer right now in the, not post roe world, though in texas we are in many ways, one of the risks right now you're seeing in your practice? >> one of the things that i have experienced, patients who have what we call an inevitable abortion. it is when a patient is pregnant, the cervix is open, the patient is having bleeding. but they are still cardiac activity. there is still the heartbeat of the fetus. there is difficulty in our hospital system with proceeding with care with those patients. because there is still cardiac activity with the fetus. and those instances, we have mothers who are, their lives are put at risk in that situation. i have experienced it with a
patient of my own, where we need it to start medication, to expedite delivery. there was a viewers all. a lot of back and forth before we can get administrator approval to move on with the care that the patient needed. that is one of the reasons why we really need to look at the decision that we are making. the other side has highlighted all of these dark ideas about what happens with abortion care. they are looking at very few examples of wet sometimes sounds like it could be bad medicine. like i said, there is already legislation. there is already laws in place for that. we should just focus on enforcing those laws. but not tie the hands of patients and providers who really just want to provide good care for their patients. >> thank you for that. >> for those who say my state is going to be all pro life, i would argue with that characterization. i would say the state will become all pro-choice, the government's choice, not a woman's choice.
not an individual choice to her reproductive freedom. i worry for my daughter, i have three sons, i worry for my daughters and law. i worry for my three granddaughters, for their future. what's their future will be is not but i enjoyed. the chance for me to plan alongside my husband, when we would have children, how many we would have, but we would be able to do with our own independent freedom. the most personal decision. when and whether to have children. miss arrambide, i thank you so much for having this conversation with us. your courage is remarkable. you live here with your dignity intact, even though some of these conversations didn't lead but their dignity intact. finally, miss glen foster, i have compassion for you for your continued sadness. your regret over your abortion. thank you for sharing that story with us. it is something we all need to think about. but you had a choice. i'm sorry you regret your
choice. no one forced you to do what you did. you had the right to make a choice. now, you work to impose your regret as the law of the land. banning everybody else's choice. just to warn you, this is a comment only. this is not how our rights work. this is not how our constitution works. your regret is not to be come a ban in the law of the land. i thank you, i yield back. >> mrs. ross? >> thank you, mister chairman. thanks to all the witnesses for testifying today. we are here today to discuss one of the greatest threats to women and families that our country has seen in 50 years. if it holds, the supreme's draft opinion overruling row will affectedly allow states to ban abortion entirely. denial of necessary care,
including abortion, can have profound and lasting impacts on peoples lives. denial of access to abortion will be particularly harmful to women who already face desperate access to all sorts of kinds of care. including people of color, people with disabilities, people in rural areas, and my state of north carolina, and low income people. in states like mine, we have not expanded medicaid for more than half 1 million people. we already see significant disparities and who can access care and corresponding disparities and health outcomes. women who fall into the medicaid cap in non-expansion states like north carolina are frequently unable to access contraception, unable to get prenatal care, and delayed in
accessing care during their pregnancy. many of these same states are also likely to enact severe abortion restrictions if roe is overturned. we know that forced pregnancy hurts women, threatens our physical and mental health, and restricts our economic possibilities. however, the republicans on this committee have shown that they don't really care about these realities, or these women. i hope that they demonstrate greater capacity for understanding when they realize that this decision will have ripple effects that harm families and children by locking people into poverty and further limiting access to health care. my first question is for professor goodwin.
please explain how low income and people of color will be prosecuted disproportionately and face greater legal risks for violating anti abortion laws, compared to those who are white and wealthy? >> individuals who have greater means will be able to afford childcare afford to be able to travel out of state, the ability to get healthier versus an abortion care out of state. individuals who happen to be poor, people of color, they are already subjected to disproportionate police surveillance and surveillance by other people and society. those will only be entrenched in it even greater extent. when abortion access is not available in their state, that will result in high rates of maternal mortality, which we already see, and also mortar morbidity. these are people who --
by medical professionals who are pressured right now to report on their patients who have miscarriages and stillbirths. that is already occurring in the united states. given the antiabortion backdrop. >> dr. robinson, i saw you nodding when i talked about not having medicaid expansion. i know that you practice medicine in a state that has not expanded medicaid. could you tell us what that failure has done to the health of women who are either seeking to have a child or may not be ready to have a child? >> thank, you yes, i to live in a state that did not accept medicaid expansion. as i said, in my testimony, in alabama, the maternal mortality rate is five times more than that then our white
counterpart. that is higher than the national average. i think this directly corresponds to access to quality health care. so, with that, without taking medicaid expansion, my people are being harmed by this. >> do you see a hypocrisy between people who would deny access to abortion care at the same time they're denying access to health care? >> absolutely. >> thank, you mr. taylor chairman, i yield back. >> mr. chairman, briefly, can we allow miss glen foster to reply to the very personal comments. >> miss bush? >> st. louis and i thank you, for swiftly convening today's hearing. i am a proud mother of two beautiful children. i'm also a person who terminated to unexpected pregnancies. i'm here to express my unwavering support for anyone who has ever decided to terminate a pregnancy.
whether person is seeking abortion care because they were raped, the condom broke, other, birth control failed, they didn't have a reliable partner, or couldn't afford a baby, everyone needs accessible options to have an abortion where they live. when i was 17 years old, i was raped. weeks later i found out i was pregnant. without the protections afforded to me by roe v. wade, i would not, i would have been forced to birth a human being that i could not take care of. and the father would have been my rapist. the emotional devastation of this encounter was traumatic. i didn't know if it was my fault. i didn't know what to do, did i do something wrong? i hadn't consented. but i blamed myself. the stress of possibly having a child at 18 was more than i could bear. it took a full two weeks worth
of pay for me to afford an abortion. money that i sorely needed for bills, for food, for my education. for physical, for spiritual, and financial reasons, i knew that this was not the right time for me to bring a life into this world. miss arrambide, what has sb8 another abortion bans meant for low income people of color who need abortions? >> thank you for your question. i think in the time before roe, the people most impacted, especially in texas are the most marginalized communities. we are talking about black communities, people of color, indigenous communities, trans and non-binary people, people in rural communities. people that live on the fringes of society. the immigrants, the undocumented people, and their access to care has been decimated. but the rest of the people that aren't afraid to seek abortion
care because the laws of your computing or they might risk being sued, those people had to travel, on, average about 1300 miles. sometimes as far as 2400 miles, to access care that should be accessible within their community. that affects so many people in texas. and some people we love. we are talking about a state that has not expanded medicaid. we are talking minister date that has cut family planning, that has decimated any sort of support system for these families and people. abortion has become practically inaccessible for the majority. >> thank you for those critical insights. i remember when i turned around $7 an hour. baby formula cost around $12 a can. i received formula through which, but that only lasted about two and half weeks of the month. that was back around 2000. over two decades later, the cost of baby formula has increased anywhere between, wet,
17 in $22? yet, the federal minimum wage hasn't changed much since 2009. and it is $7.25. so, poverty is expensive. especially in a society that fails to invest in living wages and the strong social safety net. here is my message for anyone trying to take away a person's bodily autonomy. if you are for life, you will support universal pay leave, if you are for life, you would support livable wages, if you are for life, you would support affordable childcare, affordable housing, and the expansion of wick, tenor, and snap programs. if you are for life, you would support policies that help children and families meet their material needs. you would support the constitutional right to abortion. abortion care is health care. let me say that again. abortion care is health care. it is imperative that we
protect that right for everyone, everyone meaning all, everyone. thank, you i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. this concludes today's hearing. we thank all the witnesses for participating. without objection, our members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness. for the witnesses. additional materials for the record. without objection, -- >> mister chairman, before real quick, we are going to have a statement entered into the record. miss glen foster's response to the, the ad hominem attack by miss dean. >> without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
attorney general merrick garland was on capitol hill to testify on the justice department's 2023 budget request. he also faced questions about title 42 being used at the u.s. southern border, the opioid crisis, and a recent surge in violent crime across the country. in this senate appropriations subcommittee hearing is just under two hours. [indistinct conversations]