[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVOKING YOUR RIGHTS: THE ONGOING CRISIS IN ABORTION CARE ACCESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-68
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-489 WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., DARRELL ISSA, California
Georgia KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri
AMY RUTKIN, Majority Staff Director and Chief of Staff
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, May 18, 2022
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of New York........................... 2
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of Ohio............................... 4
WITNESSES
Dr. Yashica Robinson, At-Large Member, Board of Directors,
Physicians for Reproductive Health
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Testimony............................................. 9
Ms. Aimee Arrambide, Executive Director, Avow Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Testimony............................................. 14
Ms. Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO, Americans United
for Life
Oral Testimony................................................. 18
Prepared Testimony............................................. 20
Ms. Michele Bratcher Goodwin, Chancellor's Professor of Law,
University of California, Irvine
Oral Testimony................................................. 35
Prepared Testimony............................................. 37
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
A statement from Sarah Parshall Perry, Senior Legal Fellow, Meese
Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation,
submitted by the Honorable Mike Johnson, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Louisiana, for the
record......................................................... 64
An article entitled, ``Opinion | On Roe, Alito cites a judge who
treated women as witches and property,'' Washington Post,
submitted by the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York, for the
record......................................................... 90
An article entitled, ``Opinion | Tim Scott: Abortion is not the
way to help single Black mothers,'' Washington Post, submitted
by the Honorable Burgess Owens, a Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Utah, for the record........... 120
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mike Johnson, a Member of
the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Louisiana, for
the record
A letter from Donna J. Harrison, Chief Executive Officer,
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and
Gynecologists................................................ 124
A statement from Kristan Hawkins, President, Students for Life
of America and Students for Life Action...................... 130
A statement from Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO,
Americans United for Life.................................... 150
APPENDIX
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York, for the
record
A report entitled, ``Roe and Intersectional Liberty Doctrine,''
Center for Reproductive Rights............................... 154
A statement from MomsRising.................................... 176
A report entitled, ``Protect Our Reproductive Rights: Personal
Stories on Abortion Experience,'' MomsRising................. 178
A letter from Randi Weingarten, President, American Federation
of Teachers.................................................. 221
A statement from NARAL Pro-Choice America...................... 224
A letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights....................................................... 229
An article entitled, ``The New Jane Crow,'' The Atlantic....... 235
REVOKING YOUR RIGHTS: THE ONGOING CRISIS IN ABORTION CARE ACCESS
----------
Wednesday, May 18, 2022
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair
of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson
Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Jeffries,
Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Scanlon,
Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Escobar, Jones, Ross,
Bush, Jordan, Chabot, Gohmert, Issa, Buck, Gaetz, Johnson of
Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Steube, Tiffany, Massie, Roy,
Bishop, Fischbach, Spartz, Fitzgerald, Bentz, and Owens.
Staff present: Aaron Hiller, Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff
Director; John Doty, Senior Advisor and Deputy Staff Director;
Arya Hariharan, Chief Oversight Counsel; David Greengrass,
Senior Counsel; Moh Sharma, Director of Member Services and
Outreach & Policy Advisor; Jacqui Kappler, Oversight Counsel;
Roma Venkateswaran, Professional Staff Member/Legislative Aide;
Brady Young, Parliamentarian; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk;
Gabriel Barnett, Staff Assistant; Merrick Nelson, Digital
Director; James Park, Chief Counsel for Constitution; Agbeko
Petty, Counsel for Constitution; Betsy Ferguson, Minority
Senior Counsel; Caroline Nabity, Minority Senior Counsel;
Elliott Walden, Minority Counsel; Andrea Woodard, Minority
Professional Staff Member; and Kiley Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
Chair Nadler. The House Committee on the Judiciary will
come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on Revoking
your Rights: The Ongoing Crisis in Abortion Care Access.
Before we begin, I would like to remind Members that we
have established an email address and distribution list
dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, or other materials
that 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 and
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
precedent to take away a constitutional right. In so doing it
would revoke the constitutional right to abortion, a
fundamental right it first recognized almost 50 years ago in
Roe v. Wade and on that millions of Americans have relied on
for half a century.
I want to state at the outset that I do not condone such
leaks and to whoever was responsible must be held accountable.
Now, that we have this information, we cannot ignore the
reality and the magnitude of what the Court seems poised to do
and what congressional Republicans have said they will do once
they are in power to enact a ban on abortion nationwide.
The decision to become a parent belongs to that individual.
She may consult with her doctor or her loved ones to inform
that decision, and I hope that she has such people in her life
to help her make that decision, but the decision belongs to
her, period.
Overturning Roe would remove from women the power to decide
the fundamental question of whether to carry or terminate a
pregnancy and instead would give that power to the State. It is
both timely and appropriate for the Judiciary Committee to
educate the American people about the devastating impact that
such a decision would have and 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 its continuing legality, let me be clear: Abortion
remains legal and your right to get an abortion continuous--
continues to be constitutionally protected, at least for now.
Making decisions about when and how to start a family is
central to women's lives. The right to decide whether to carry
or terminate a pregnancy is central 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 a parent
belongs to that individual, period. No court decision is more
essential to protecting a woman's individual autonomy than Roe
v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that recognized a
constitutional right to abortion.
Roe represented a watershed moment in our nation's history.
Recognizing the right of women to make reproductive decisions
is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and
a pillar of women's equality. In doing so, the Supreme Court
continued a series of rulings that rejected government
interference in America's most intimate life decisions. To the
Court, ``Few decisions were more personal and intimate,
properly private, or more basic to individual dignity and
autonomy than a woman's decision whether to end a pregnancy.''
Almost 20 years later, in Planned Parenthood v. 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 their
reproductive health, they cannot make decisions about starting
a career, going to school, opening a business, and planning
their lives.
Unfortunately, Roe and Casey remain under constant threat
resulting in an ongoing crisis in abortion and other vital
healthcare 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 of reach. This is
so in spite of the fact that numerous studies have concluded
that giving birth involves more serious health complications
than having an abortion.
Meanwhile, according to the recently-leaked draft majority
opinion in the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health
Organization authored by Justice Samuel Alito, an emboldened
right-wing majority in the Supreme Court appears poised to
revoke the right to abortion altogether.
To be clear, this draft remains just that: A draft opinion,
and we await the Court's actual decision expected to be handed
down in the next several weeks. Nonetheless, we cannot simply
ignore the fact that the nation now appears to stand at a
constitutional turning point. If the Supreme Court overturns or
severely 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
ban all abortions if Roe were to fall and at least eight States
that have pre-Roe bans that would be--once again become
enforceable should Roe be overturned. Practically overnight,
whether the government protects the essential individual right
to make reproductive healthcare decisions will depend entirely
upon where in this country a person lives.
Furthermore, if the leaked draft opinion becomes the
Court's 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 an abortion provider face impossible decisions and
often unsurmountable 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 in the hope that no one
notices, but if Justice Alito's draft opinion holds, millions
of Americans will lose their fundamental constitutional right
overnight. Do not let them get away with it. They will try to
muddy the waters today by accusing Democrats of bullying the
Court as if the wealthy conservative justices poised to hand
down this decision have it worse than the women and healthcare
providers who risk imprisonment if they seek or perform an
abortion after this decision takes effect. They will try to
distract you from their ultimate goal, a ban on abortion
nationwide without exception.
Republican 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 best to protect democratic institutions from
the crowd that cheered on the mob on January 6 of last year and
continues to perpetuate a gross lie about the last election.
As they accuse the leaker of undermining democracy keep in
mind the most stunning aspect of this draft decision: Justice
Alito's words and logic used today to undermine the right to
abortion provide a road map for the erosion of other
fundamental rights including the rights to marriage, to
contraception, and to make decisions about raising our own
children.
Justice Alito's assurances to the contrary in this draft
opinion are cold comfort. He used the same logic to argue
against the right to marriage in Obergefell and there is no
reason to believe that the same five justices will not engage
in a similar raw exercise of power to overturn other basic
rights should the opportunity arise.
Ladies and gentlemen, at base, safe, legal, and accessible
abortion continues to be fundamental to individual equality,
autonomy, and personal liberty. The decision to become a parent
belongs to that individual. We cannot go backward. Congressmen
must now stand up with Americans around the country and refuse
to turn back the clock.
Republican leadership has 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
that 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 from their attempt to take your
decision about becoming a parent away from you.
Nationwide means nationwide. Without exception means
without exception. We cannot let that happen. Instead, Congress
must Act to ensure that every woman, regardless of geographic
location, income, race, or any other fact, 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, and 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 and 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.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is about intimidation.
It started in 2018 when the left and Democrats lied about
Justice Kavanaugh, treated that individual in such a savage
way. I don't know if I have ever seen anything like it.
Two years later in 2020 we saw Senator Schumer stand on the
steps of the Supreme Court and threaten sitting justices. Here
is what he said: ``I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell
you, Kavanaugh, you've released the whirlwind and you will pay
the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with
these awful decisions.'' It is about intimidation.
Thirteen months ago, President Biden launched a
Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court to explore packing
the Court. It was no accident that that same month, the Chair
of this Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, introduced
legislation to pack the Supreme Court.
Four weeks ago, this Committee held a hearing in a
Subcommittee laying the groundwork to impeach Justice Thomas.
Of course, three weeks ago, the draft Dobbs opinion was leaked,
leaked for the first time it has ever happened, draft opinion
leaked.
Last week this Committee the Democrats passed legislation
requiring, among other things, that people who want to submit
amicus briefs to the Supreme Court would be required to
disclose all their donors in an attempt to chill First
Amendment protected free speech.
The latest attempt to intimidate the Court started 10
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 us from considering legislation passed
unanimously by the Senate to give the Supreme Court justices
more security. They need more security now more than ever.
There are protestors outside their homes protesting each and
every day. Protestors showed up at justices' place of worship
on Mother's Day. You know why they are trying to bully and
intimidate the Court? You know why? Because the evidence for
overturning Roe is overwhelming and the reasoning and the logic
in the draft Dobbs majority opinion is so strong.
Here is what it said: ``Roe was on a collision course with
the Constitution from the day it was decided and Casey
perpetuated its errors, and the errors do not concern some
arcane 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 not reference to abortion and
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
people's elected representatives.'' To the people's 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 or older, you can't take their life. You
can't do it.
Specifically, it said this: ``Except in a medical emergency
a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform or induce
an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable
gestational age of that unborn human being has been determined
to be greater than 15 weeks.''
Why? Why did they pick that time frame? At five weeks an
unborn child's heart begins beating. At eight weeks the child
begins to move in the womb. At 10 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 of Mississippi's legislature passed the 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 real liberty,
you never have true freedom if government won't protect your
most fundamental right, your right to live.
I hope the draft opinion is the final opinion because it is
a win for logic, it is a win for the Constitution, and most
importantly it is a win for the sanctity of human life.
Finally, I hope the attempt to intimidate the Court ends now.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chair Nadler. Without objection, all other opening
statements will be included in the record.
I will now introduce today's Witnesses.
Dr. Yashica Robinson is a board-certified obstetrician/
gynecologist. She serves on the Board of Directors of
Physicians for Reproductive Health and is an attending
physician at the Alabama Women's Wellness Center. Dr. Robinson
received her B.A. from Talladega College and her M.D. from the
Morehouse School of Medicine.
Aimee Arrambide, and I hope I got that pronunciation
correct. Aimee Arrambide is the Executive Director of Avow
Texas. She serves on the board of Equality Texas and the
Advisory Council of ReproAction and is a We Testify
storyteller. She received her undergraduate degree at the
University of Texas and a law degree from New York Law School.
Catherine Glenn Foster is President and CEO of Americans
United for Life. Previously she spent seven years a litigation
counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom. She then founded and
managed a law practice and led Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
USA as Executive Director. Ms. Foster earned her B.A. from
Berry College, a Master's degree from the University of South
Carolina--South Florida, and a J.D. from Georgetown University
Law Center.
Michele Bratcher Goodwin is the Chancellor's Professor of
Law and 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
the Law School, Medical School, and School of Public Health.
She received her B.A. from the University of Wisconsin, her
J.D. from Boston College Law School, and received L.L.M. and
S.J.D. degrees from the University of Wisconsin.
We welcome our distinguished Witnesses and we thank them
for participating today. I will begin by swearing in our
Witnesses. I ask that our Witnesses in person please rise and
raise your right hand. I ask that our remote Witness please
turn on your audio and make sure I can see your face and your
raised 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 belief, so help you God?
Let the record show the Witnesses have answered in the
affirmative. Thank you and please be seated.
Please note that each of your written statements will be
entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask
that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you
stay within that time there is a timing light on your table.
When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one
minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it
signals your five minutes have expired.
For our Witness appearing virtually, there is a timer on
your screen to help you keep track of time.
Dr. Robinson, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF YASHICA ROBINSON
Dr. Robinson. Good morning, Chair 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 member with Physicians for
Reproductive Health, and I am the Medical Director of Alabama
Women's Center, one of Alabama's last clinics that provides
abortion care.
As a full-spectrum obstetrician/gynecologist, I have a busy
obstetrics practice where I provide prenatal care, deliver
babies, and treat people after they give birth. I also provide
abortion care because I know patients deserve access to the
full spectrum of reproductive healthcare options.
As of today, abortion remains legal in Alabama and States
across the country, but it is not likely to remain that way.
This has never been a theoretical exercise. We're 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
deserve to make decisions about their lives, health, and
bodies, but 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 in
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, but I know that everyone
should be able to make the decision to parent for themselves. I
have been in the shoes of many of the young people that I see
in my clinic, and it is important for them to know that
regardless of their decision that I'm here to support them.
Access to care should not look different based on your ZIP
Code. Because of 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 targeted 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 restrictions add needless cost and delays. The
effects on the patients I care for are painful for me to see
and things are only going to get worse as States move to ban
abortions 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, and this 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 healthcare.
Receiving or providing this care should not be
criminalized. By attempting to criminalize practitioners who
provide abortion care, the bans that we have seen pass in
Alabama and in other States threaten people and communities
that are already suffering from a lack of healthcare resources
and it compounds the complex scenarios that obstetricians like
me routinely balance as we make the best decisions we can in
managing complicated pregnancies.
Restrictions on abortion affect everyone yet fall hardest
on those who are marginalized and likely facing financial and
logistical barriers to care. Often these are the same people
who are 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 loss and had their search histories and
digital footprints used as evidence to prosecute and sentence
them. Patients' well-founded fear of surveillance and
criminalization leaves them to distrust the healthcare system
ultimately harming our collective health and well-being.
The truth is as more States enact abortion restrictions and
attempt to ban abortion entirely, patients and providers will
be put in untenable situations. Patients will be forced to
leave their communities, providers forced to relocate to
continue providing care to medical students, and residents
unable to receive education or training in abortion care,
patients and providers fearing criminal charges for seeking or
receiving care, providing essential and normal healthcare.
This is a future that is filled with control, fear, and
coercion, but the bottom line is this: Abortion is healthcare
and 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 and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Dr. Robinson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
Ms. Arrambide, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF AIMEE ARRAMBIDE
Ms. Arrambide. Good morning and thank you to the House
Judiciary Committee for inviting me to provide testimony today.
My name is Aimee Arrambide. I use she/her pronouns and I'm a We
Testify Abortion Storyteller and the Executive Director of
Avow, an organization that strives for unrestricted 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
experience mental health issues in a given year, and one in
twenty-five 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 Filipina American and second-
generation Mexican American and I'm here to speak on behalf of
everyone whose abortions allowed them to care for their mental
health and enable them to thrive as a result.
My story is not uncommon, but with the stigma surrounding
both abortion and mental health disabilities it is rarely
discussed.
From my late teens into my mid-20s I suffered from
undiagnosed bipolar disorder, but because I was a good student,
I hid it well. In college it was harder to identify. For months
at a time, I would be highly energetic, hyper-productive
followed by periods of extreme depression. Just existing was
too hard. I tried 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 had 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, so 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 family's values. My father was
an abortion provider in Central and South Texas from the 1970-
1990s. He switched his specialty from anesthesiology to
obstetrics and gynecology in the 1970s and after witnessing the
repercussions of unsafe abortions before legalization, decided
to provide abortions. When I was a child, he took me to a
clinic in Laredo where he provided abortions twice a month. I
witnessed the gratitude on the faces of 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, and as I spent more time with
him and as he spiraled into depression, we both realized that I
was not well. I concluded that 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 of 16
years.
During law school when I was ready, I had two miscarriages
and then two children and my pregnancies were physically and
mentally very difficult. After being a parent for the past 11
years, I have no doubt that if I had an abortion when I--if I
hadn't had an abortion when I did, I would not have survived.
My chosen pregnancies were not easy, but they were exactly
that, chosen, and my children are my whole world.
By 2019, Texans would encounter over 26 different abortion
restrictions. It was then after my husband's vasectomy that I
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 were exponentially more difficult, and that's still
with all the privileges and resources I had at my disposal.
If this had happened any time in the last eight months
after S.B. 8, the six-week ban, went into effect, I would have
had to take off work, find childcare for my children, and
travel out of State. If this had happened any time in the last
decade before S.B. 8 went into effect, I would be able to get
care in Texas, but I would also have encountered a 24-hour
government-mandated delay, a forced sonogram, the
legislatively-mandated, medically-inaccurate ``Women's Right to
Know'' booklet, and anti-abortion counseling.
When S.B. 8 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 because they were afraid
of being sued or putting their loved ones at risk.
The wait for care has increased at clinics in our four
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' trigger
ban would go into effect 30 days after, banning abortion
completely with barely any exceptions. This is real and it's
terrifying.
Everyone loves someone who had an abortion.
[The statement of Ms. Arrambide follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Nadler. The Witness's time has expired. Thank you.
Ms. Foster, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE GLENN FOSTER
Ms. Foster. We're here today because there is an ongoing
crisis in America. The crisis we're confronting is abortion,
not abortion care, not abortion access, not abortion choice.
No, we're here today because there is a crisis in America
concerning abortion itself, full stop.
We're approaching 65 million Americans dead from abortion.
I know this firsthand. At 19 I aborted my first child. I felt
emotional and psychological pressure to end my child's life. I
was alone. So many voices in the culture lied to me. So many
told me abortion was okay, was normal, was good even. I've
lived with the 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
that the other women on this panel today believe differently. I
know their stories and I've 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 in medical waste bins, and in places
like Washington, DC, burned to power the lights of the city's
homes and streets. Let that image sink with you for a moment.
The next time you turn on the light think of the incinerators,
think of what we're doing to ourselves so callously and so
numbly.
Always and everywhere, the convictions of pro-abortion
activists are damaging, are 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 died to perpetuate that
injustice. It seems incredible to us today, but Americans can
and will overcome the injustice of abortion just as Americans
did finally overcome the injustice of slavery.
Indeed, we're here today because the U.S. Supreme Court
appears to be finally on the verge of reversing Roe v. Wade and
Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Roe and Casey are widely regarded
by legal scholars on the left and the right as the Court's
greatest and most profound mistakes since Dred Scott or Plessy.
The future of America, a post-Roe America, is a future full
of hope. Roe's reversal will make it possible for America's
lawmakers to once again affirmatively to protect the human
right to life and to enshrine law and policy that makes
abortion unthinkable for even those most vulnerable to abortion
propaganda.
Now, despite this historic moment, pro-abortion Members of
Congress recently voted to enshrine abortion in a more
systemically unjust way even than Roe. Codifying Roe would
threaten to invalidate State informed consent protections.
Codifying Roe would threaten to invalidate reflection periods,
consumer tele-med protections, State prohibitions against race
or sex or genetic discrimination, and State laws protecting
human persons at or before the point of viability. Nowhere do
efforts to codify Roe into 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 informed
consent, and for the interests 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 preborn
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, acknowledged 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 our
brothers and sisters of the equal protection of the laws.
Abortion turns equals into unequals, it empowers the strong at
the expense of the vulnerable, and 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.
[The statement of Ms. Foster follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Nadler. Okay. Thank you.
Professor Goodwin, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHELE BRATCHER GOODWIN
Ms. Goodwin. Good morning, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member
Jordan, and distinguished Members of the House Judiciary
Committee. Thank you for inviting me to participate in today's
hearing. My name is Michele Bratcher Goodwin. I am a
Chancellor's Professor at the University of California Irvine,
a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School. I write and teach
in the areas of constitutional law, bioethics, and health law.
My scholarship is published in the Harvard Law Review and the
Yale Law Journal, among others, and in books, most recently
``Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of
Motherhood.''
Over the past 50 years that have been nearly 50 bombings of
abortion clinics with 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 healthcare.
Now soon, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling in Dobbs v.
Jackson Women's Health Organization, a case that involves a
Mississippi abortion ban at 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 v. Casey, two cases underpinning
the constitutional right to abortion in the United States.
For many women of means who can travel and pay for
childcare, 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 Jane Crow.
In this term, the Supreme Court demonstrated its
willingness to selectively read and ignore its own
jurisprudence when it allowed a draconian Texas abortion ban,
S.B. 8, to go into effect. S.B. 8 bans abortions after six
weeks of pregnancy before which many women, girls, and
pregnant-capable people even realize that they are pregnant.
Ripping a page from the darkest annals 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 its shameful
predecessor, the Fugitive Slave Act showed the bounty
incentivizes private individuals to spy upon, surveil, and
interfere with the individuals asserting fundamental human and
constitutional rights such as bodily autonomy, privacy, and
freedom.
Revoking abortion rights is the very subject of Justice
Alito's leaked draft opinion, which is disturbing for many
reasons including troubling inaccuracies, unsupported
assertions, and flawed reasoning such as the notion that
constitutional rights do not exist unless explicitly
articulated or enumerated in the Constitution.
This novel principal casts doubt on the legitimacy of
corporate religious personhood and artful contrivance of law
innovated in 2014 by Justice Alito himself in Burwell v. Hobby
Lobby, a case that bestowed religious liberties on for-profit
corporations that sought to limit contraceptive access to
female employees. Nowhere in the Constitution or statute is it
mentioned that for-profit corporations shall have religious
identities and liberties, nevertheless this was crafted by
Justice Alito less than a decade ago.
If the draft opinion derives from a purported neutral view
of the law, as Justice Alito argues, its technical errors and
omissions are stunningly apparent. Not once does the opinion
address rape or incest even though the newly styled abortion
bans, including the Mississippi law, the subject of the draft
opinion, and Texas' S.B. 8 law, provide no exceptions for
survivors. Sadly, the draft opinion eschews inconvenient facts
calling them irrelevant, yet facts matter.
Moreover, one of the most substantive omissions in Justice
Alito's draft is that the Constitution establishes that, ``All
persons born or naturalized are citizens of the United
States.'' The Constitution does not mention embryos, fetuses,
or unborn children.
Now, stripping away these exceptions and forcing abortion
providers to close their doors exposes the illogic and cruel
political nature of these bans which showcase the dismantling
of democratic norms and principles.
Justice Alito writes about Blackstone, Coke, and Hale, and
in fact he cites these legal authorities, legal authorities who
condemned women to the status of property and suggested that
women could be subjected to physical punishment and even rape
by their husbands. According to Blackstone, this was for her
protection and benefit.
Now, notably, it was the 13th and 14th Amendments in which
women, not just men, were freed from the bondages of slavery.
It is very clear that the 13th and 14th Amendments 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 in labor and reproduction.
It is undeniable history reported by this very Congress. Should
the Supreme Court dismantle Roe v. Wade, its decision will be
the modern-day corollary and appendage to Plessy v. Ferguson,
anchoring separate but equal legal discourse in matters of
reproductive health rights and justice. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Goodwin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Nadler. I thank all the Witnesses for their
testimony. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
questions. I will recognize myself for five minutes.
Ms. Arrambide, for nearly a year, abortion care has
effectively been banned in your home State of Texas since S.B.
8 went into effect in September of 2021. The leaked draft
majority opinion in Dobbs is deeply troubling, but the truth is
there has been a multi-year assault by a hostile State
legislature that has severely impacted abortion care access in
your State.
How has this multi-year attack in Texas' draconian six-week
abortion ban affected the lives of pregnant people in Texas
today?
Ms. Arrambide. Thank you. In Texas, currently, we're living
in a post-Roe world will--where people can't access the
abortion care they need or they want despite the fact that the
majority of Texans support access to abortion care. People have
had to--they're too afraid to look for information for fear of
being sued. They're too afraid to call clinics for fear of
being sued. They're too afraid to even access resources from
abortion funds because they don't know what the repercussions
might be for their loved ones and themselves.
In addition to that once they're able to find out the
information, their care is delayed. They had 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. Many times, people are forced
either to forego care altogether or--and be forced to carry
their pregnancy to term or they're self-managing their
abortion.
Abortion is essential healthcare and it should be available
to everyone. In Texas, we've been living as if we're already in
a post-Roe world, and it's only going to get worse. If the
decision stands, over 26 States are poised to ban abortion and
the impact will be exponential across the country. Texas is
home to over 30 million people. Seven million in 2019 were of
reproductive age and ability. Those people won't be able to
access the care they need. That's a travesty. Thank you.
Chair Nadler. 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 a situation where the Court will have taken away a
long-recognized constitutional right. A person will have had a
constitutional right today, gone to bed and woken up tomorrow
to find that she no longer has such a right. What is your
reaction to such a scenario?
Ms. Goodwin. It is incredibly unusual in our American
democracy and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence that the
Supreme Court would actually take away the expansion of a right
which is fundamental. That is not something that we've seen the
Court do. Instead, what the Court has done has been to reject
draconian laws such as those that enslaved American Black
people or laws that denied women rights such as to become
attorneys, or when there were laws that denied women to be able
to have credit cards in their own names. The Supreme Court has
struck down such laws and has expanded freedoms. The Supreme
Court has never gone back to, in fact, revoke what have been
freedoms that have been well-articulated and established in the
Constitution and also by the Supreme Court is highly unusual.
Chair Nadler. 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
by assuring that they have access to safe, legal, and
lifesaving medical care. If the Supreme Court were to overturn
Roe, how would it further exacerbate the current crisis in
abortion care access and what would it mean for the patients
and communities you serve?
Dr. Robinson. 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. So, if this is overturned,
that means that patients in my community and the surrounding
communities who have depended on us for care will no longer
have access to the healthcare 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 patients
about options when it comes to their healthcare.
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.
If these patients are hospitalized and they're hospitalized
because they are very ill, we already require two physicians to
be able to sign off on this. Unfortunately, when a person is
pregnant and is prior to 20 weeks, 22 weeks gestational age,
that means that if we end that pregnancy, that means that the
pregnancy will not come to term. So, as hard as it is to hear,
that is still called an abortion and it is medical care that
some patients need. We have difficulty obtaining permission to
proceed with that right now.
Chair Nadler. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gaetz?
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield to Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
The very subject of this hearing is an outrage. Abortion
care, the stated topic today, is, of course, an oxymoron. The
timing and the obvious purpose of this hearing today are
unconscionable, and they are profoundly damaging to our
institutions.
Democrats are engaging in a brazen attempt here to
intimidate and bully the justices of Supreme Court as they
consider a challenge to Mississippi's pro-life law. As soon as
the draft opinion was leaked, their activists on the left began
to picket and harass the justices and their families in their
homes. Democrats have threatened the justices by name in the
press, on the steps of the Supreme Court, and in recent briefs
to the Court, and now in this and previous Judiciary Committee
hearings.
We have jurisdiction of the American system of justice and
the fact that we would be here trying to influence a pending
opinion is unprecedented and dangerous to our institutions. So
much for the Constitution, our system of justice, and our
critical foundations and the principle of judicial
independence.
There is no right to abortion in the Constitution, period.
Never was. It is not in its text, it is not in its structure,
not in its meaning.
Roe invented the right out of thin air and it was highly
criticized from the moment that 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 was said a
moment ago, almost 65 million of America's unborn children have
perished because of it.
Because there is no right to an abortion in the
Constitution, that question is left to the States for the
people to decide. This is long overdue and after nearly a half-
century we are very hopeful and grateful that might finally
happen.
Ms. Goodwin reminded us just a moment ago that facts matter
so let's talk about the underlying facts, because the facts and
the law and the logic and the advancements in medical
technology are clearly on the side of life.
As the Susan B. Anthony list summarizes it well, ``The
humanity of the unborn child is undeniable now thanks to
advances in modern medicine and science.'' At six weeks, an
unborn child has a beating heart and by 15 weeks unborn
children can suck their thumbs, they have fully-formed noses
and lips, eyes and eyebrows, and they can feel excruciating
pain. These children deserve a voice in the American democratic
process.
In the recent Dobbs argument before the Supreme Court,
Chief Justice Roberts pointed to the fact that the U.S. is an
outlier to the vast majority of other countries' viability
standards. He said, ``When you get to the viability standard,
we share that standard with the People's 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.
In our nation's birth certificate, we boldly declared that
it is a self-evident truth that human beings are made by their
Creator, and they are endowed by Him with certain unalienable
rights. The first listed is the right to life for obvious
reasons.
All three of the Democrat Witnesses here today support and
advocate for what they say is unrestricted abortion on demand.
Let me ask Dr. Robinson.
I could go to any of them, but you are the medical doctor.
Based on your website and your testimony today you clearly
support the right to abort a 20-week-old unborn child, so I
would love for you to explain to us in your medical opinion at
what point in pregnancy should having an abortion no longer be
an option?
Dr. Robinson. Thank you for the 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 progresses, and that
may be for various reasons.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay.
Dr. Robinson. So, I--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Let me ask you, do you support
the right of a woman who is just seconds away from birthing a
healthy child to have an abortion?
Dr. Robinson. I think that the question that you're asking
does not realistically reflect abortion care in the United
States.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. In that scenario, would you
support her right to abort that child?
Dr. Robinson. I won't entertain theoreticals.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It is not a theoretical, ma'am.
Dr. Robinson. That's not reality.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You are a medical doctor.
Dr. Robinson. I am medical doctor and that has never
happened in any healthcare--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Never happened in your practice,
ma'am, but it happens. How about if a child is halfway out of
the birth canal? Is an abortion permissible then?
Dr. Robinson. Can you repeat your question?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. If a child is halfway delivered
out of the birth canal, is it permissible to have an abortion?
Would you support the right for an abortion then?
Dr. Robinson. I can't even fathom that ever--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I am not asking you if you can
fathom it. If it occurred, would you support that abortion or
not? That is unrestricted abortion, right?
Dr. Robinson. I can't answer a question that I can't
imagine I--just like you probably can't imagine what you would
do if your daughter was raped. If that hasn't happened, it may
be difficult for you to--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay. You are not going to answer
this question, but how about this one? How does one qualify as
fully human? What makes a human being?
Dr. Robinson. What makes a person a human being--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is right.
Dr. Robinson. --is them being born, number one.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Oh.
Dr. Robinson. That's why we have birthdays. Then, also,
their individual DNA, them having autonomy, being able to Act
and think autonomously--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay, but wait a minute. A
newborn child lacks the immediate capacity--
Dr. Robinson. --being able to breathe and live outside of
the womb.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. A newborn child lacks the
immediate capacity to make conscious deliberate choices, so is
infanticide, okay?
Dr. Robinson. I think what we're here to talk about is
abortion care. What you're describing is something that is
already illegal and there are laws on the books for that, so
I'm not a proponent of restrictions.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You understand if Dobbs is 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 am out of time. I yield back.
Dr. Robinson. There are laws on the books for that.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time is expired. The Witness
may answer the question.
Dr. Robinson. I'm sorry?
Chair Nadler. I said the gentleman's time is expired. The
Witness may answer the question.
Dr. Robinson. Okay. In the instance that he's describing,
there are already laws on the books for that. Those are
criminals acts and so I'm not a proponent of any additional
restrictions on people being able to access abortion care. I'm
a proponent of us just enforcing the laws that are already on
the books.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. What if the law is changed to
allow for that?
Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am mindful that the--Senator McConnell has already
discussed publicly the concept of prohibiting abortion in every
case, in every State, should the Court allow that to occur. So,
really what we are talking about is the potential of
politicians making decisions, taking the decisions away from
individuals and really criminalizing healthcare for women. You
have given an interesting testimony, but my question really
goes to the other potential impacts of what is being discussed.
Professor Goodwin, what impact would such a decision, if
the draft were to become the Court's decision--what impact
could that have on in vitro fertilization or contraception in
your view? Could that become criminalized as well?
Ms. Goodwin. It certainly could. So, I want to speak to two
impacts: The first that we have to speak to is maternal
mortality. The United States ranks 55th in the world in terms
of maternal mortality--
Ms. Lofgren. Correct.
Ms. Goodwin. --not among its peer nations, but it is--ranks
among Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, and Russia, places that allow for
the stoning and lashing of women.
More specifically to your question, yes, we could see in
fact a dismantling of contraception access, access to being
able to have IUDs, access to Plan B, which is used after a
rape.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, let me follow up with--if I may with you
on that, because in the draft opinion, Justice Alito really
says there is no privacy right and also that there is no
deeply-rooted, in this nation's history and tradition, right to
abortion.
Now, I look at the Constitution. Does not mention women.
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?
Ms. Goodwin. Well, it certainly could be. It sends a very
strong signal to States that are already inclined to do that,
where State lawmakers and governors have already indicated that
that's their interest, to impose civil punishments, criminal
punishments, and begin stripping away rights that we've seen
emerge over time. We've already seen this in Texas with regard
to the governor pushing forward an Executive Order that would
essentially punish parents who are providing affirmative care
to their children who are trans. So, gay marriage is at stake.
The ability to adopt if you are gay at stake. Interracial
marriage at stake. It only takes one local county clerk to say
I disagree.
Ms. Lofgren. 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 healthcare. The media is full of stories, news
stories identifying new risks to women's data privacy in a
post-Roe world. For example, here is a headline sample from the
Washington Post: ``Law enforcement may fully unleash its data
collection tools on abortion'' or ``Without Roe, data will
become a company headache and user nightmare. What police could
find out about your illegal abortion.'' Vox points out that
period apps and data privacy in the pro- or post-Roe v. Wade
climate could actually be utilized to prosecute women.
How could information gathered by such apps, Dr. Robinson,
be used to target women who seek reproductive care in States
with laws that criminalize care and could these apps track
location, for example, to Planned Parenthood and be weaponized
against clinics?
You have to turn on your mic.
Dr. Robinson. Oh, I apologize. It's hard to imagine how
these apps that people are using to track their menstrual
cycles and to try to control their fertility, how this will be
used against people in a post-Roe world. I could not imagine us
going back to the day where abortion access wouldn't be
available, so that's just difficult for me to fathom at this
time.
Ms. Lofgren. My time is expired, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, 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 DC, when I flew up Monday at a
gas station right outside of Washington, DC. I understand out
in California they are over $6 a gallon now. 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. Perhaps even more
concerning is the supply chain issues that continue to plague
our nation. Now, young families can't even find baby formula to
feed their newborn children. These shortages and the resulting
price hikes have gone far beyond just being an inconvenience.
They have become a desperate reality to American families
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
toward solutions to solve these and so many other problems that
are adversely 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, by instead
scaring people with a hypothetical case, concerns that might
happen down the road in the future.
Today it is 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 people leaked like this before,
at least not to my knowledge, and for good reason. The Court
relies on the good faith of its Members to work through complex
legal questions, sharing draft opinions so they can respond to
each other's concerns.
Through that process, opinions can evolve and develop and
improve and sometimes change. In the end, the American people
get a better understanding and a reasoned result, even when
they may not ultimately agree with the outcome, as obviously in
this country--on abortion, this country has been in dramatic
disagreement for some time now. At least that is the way it has
worked 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 hyper-partisanship?
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 that may ultimately consume the United States
Supreme Court's independence, and that is not a good day for
America.
Ms. Foster, as well as being a strong pro-life advocate,
you are also an attorney, and I would like to ask, can you
think of another example of 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 to the functionality and
reputation of the Court?
Ms. Foster. I cannot think of one and that's because there
hasn't been one. That leak and even this hearing, it really
threatens the integrity of the Court. Today is wild speculation
about what the Court may do, not what it has done. The leaker
intended to bring chaos and public pressure to the reasoned
deliberations of the Court as they attempted to determine the
outcome of the case. It's simply wrong.
Mr. Chabot. I know you and many pro-life advocates would
like this to mean no more abortions in the country, but in
reality, what actually happens?
Ms. Foster. What actually happens if--
Mr. Chabot. If this decision comes out and Roe would be
overturned by the Supreme Court.
Ms. Foster. If Roe is overturned, then the issue returns to
the States. As Ron Paul has written, the federalization of
abortion law is based 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 and to our elected representatives.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
My time is expired, Mr. Chair.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair very much. I view this
hearing as probably one of the most important hearings in my
lifetime dealing with the absolute question of the survival of
the Constitution.
First, let me acknowledge the very weak distraction of a
leak. I have absolutely no concern about a leak where a duly-
constituted body such as the Supreme Court would be prevented
from doing its work. There is no question that the Republicans
want a total nationwide ban on abortion with no exceptions for
incest, no exceptions for rape, an intolerable inhuman posture
that they would put America in.
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 that non-Hispanic Black women
suffered 55.3 percent deaths per 100,000 live births, a number
2.9 times the rate of non-Hispanic White women, which means
that in many instances, as loving as pregnancy can be for those
who choose it, it can also mean death to women who happen to be
African American and other minorities.
So, 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, would you assess the question of the idea of
ignoring the First Amendment because church services are not
specifically mentioned in the--or synagogue services are not
specifically mentioned, ignoring the Eighth Amendment, or
ignoring the Fourth Amendment? Professor, could you analyze the
importance of recognizing that Roe v. Wade is precedent in the
Ninth Amendment dealing with privacy?
Ms. Goodwin. Thank you very much for that question. First,
over 233 years of the Supreme Court's existence, the Supreme
Court has fashioned rights because the Ninth Amendment provides
for, that is to say that not all rights have to be explicitly
enumerated in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has the discretion through its
interpretation of the Constitution to speak to matters that are
not explicitly delineated. The drafters of the Constitution
anticipated that they had not thought of all matters that would
be important to America as it developed, but that there would
be a 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
didn't have trains, we didn't have planes, we did not have
cars, we had no electric cars. We had none of the machineries
of war that we currently have.
So, as we look at other amendments too, from a Second
Amendment perspective, there are certain artillery that we have
today that has not anticipated at the time of the Second
Amendment drafting.
To 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 what 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 is also worth noting what the 13th Amendment
says, and the 14th Amendment.
If we appreciate that Members of Congress were free, not
only Black men but also Black women, 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 when one looks at--
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Ms. Arrambide, you lived under
the horrors of the Texas S.B. 8. Thank you for your father's
life and legacy.
Tell me what it means to have a stalking provision, meaning
that women can be exposed, and a bounty can be given to them
under the Texas law, and that law spreading across America,
along with an absolute ban on abortion.
Ms. Arrambide, are you there?
Ms. Arrambide. Yes, thank you for that question. Since S.B.
8 went into 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. That's had a chilling
effect for people trying to access abortion care.
People can't exercise their constitutional right to have
abortions. That's not okay, and it's about to spread throughout
the country if this decision goes into effect. So, it's
terrifying.
Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr.
Gohmert.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank, and I yield back.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
Witnesses here today.
Ms. Foster, we've heard a great deal about it's my body,
it's my choice. The same people that said that seem to feel
like if it comes to a vaccination, it's not your body and it's
not your choice. We get to tell you whether you have
vaccinations or not, regardless of what the risks are.
Do you believe people have the right to choose what happens
to their own bodies?
Ms. Foster. I believe in protecting every human being, no
matter who they are, where they are, any other aspect about
them. Whatever you call that is what I'm for. That absolutely
includes human beings in the womb.
Mr. Gohmert. Yeah, well, it's interesting. Are you familiar
with the law? State and Federal law does not recognize a
child's being mature enough to enter in legally binding
contracts, so that normally it is a parent that is required to
make decisions in the best interest of the child's body,
correct?
Ms. Foster. Correct, yes.
Mr. Gohmert. So, you've obviously been working in the pro-
life movement for a long time. Do you think it's an appropriate
presumption that a parent will choose to do what's in the best
interests of a baby's own body, since they can't make the
choice for themselves?
Ms. Foster. Absolutely, we should be protecting every human
being.
Mr. Gohmert. Do you believe there should be a presumption
that a parent will make a decision for the best interests of
the child's body?
Ms. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Gohmert. We've seen lots of problems. We've heard a
testimony about the mental duress of carrying a child. Of
course, I'm sure you're aware of what's called postpartum
depression. Some have it very severely.
I'm wondering if a mother is suffering severe depression as
a result of having a child that she's not mentally and
physically able to take care of, do you believe that the mother
should have the right, like to drown a child, to get rid of the
child because of the mental stress and duress and problems that
the mother is having?
Ms. Foster. Of course not, that would be horrifying. That's
why we have safe haven laws to provide support and resources
and an outlet for women in difficult situations.
Mr. Gohmert. From what you've said already, you seem to
feel like the child's body does belong to the child, but relies
on the parent to make decisions for the child's best wellbeing,
correct?
Ms. Foster. I trust that people are looking out for the
best interest of all human beings and are supporting their
right to life.
Mr. Gohmert. Are you--well, are you familiar with premature
babies, preemies?
Ms. Foster. Of course, yes.
Mr. Gohmert. Do you find that it seems they have an
inherent desire to live?
Ms. Foster. Absolutely. When you visit a NICU you see them
fighting for their ability to live, for every breath.
Mr. Gohmert. Yeah, and that's a good term, fighting for the
ability to live. From our own daughter that was born eight to
ten weeks prematurely, we were sent to a higher-level ICU,
neonatal ICU, because they had a higher survival rate.
When I got there 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 got to sit down right here.
That baby can't see you properly, but she knows your voice.
You stroke her little face, her hands. She grabbed the end of
my finger, and I couldn't move for eight hours because, as the
doctor said, she's drawing strength, she's drawing life from
you.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gohmert. That's the role of a parent, and I thank you
for your being here.
Chair Nadler. Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Foster, let me ask you a question: Are you in favor of
outlawing abortion in all 50 States?
Ms. Foster. I believe in protecting every human person, no
matter who or where they are. So, whatever you call that is
what I'm for.
Mr. Cohen. So, you're in favor of outlawing abortion in all
50 States. Do you think that should be done by the Federal
government in protecting all those individuals, as you call
them?
Ms. Foster. I don't think that we have gotten to that point
necessarily. We haven't--what we've put it on the Women's
Health Protection Act. So, we've seen the converse, the
codification of--
Mr. Cohen. If Senator McConnell was able to go forward and
have a bill to outlaw abortion federally, which is not
prohibited from this Congress from doing such, would you be in
favor of Congress prohibiting abortion in all 50 States?
Ms. Foster. I would be in favor of protecting every human
being no matter where they are.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. What if a person was impregnated by
rape or incest. Would you be in favor of an abortion then, or
still against abortion?
Ms. Foster. I would say that every human being is
inherently valuable.
Mr. Cohen. You've said that many times. So, basically, what
you're saying is you are against an exception for rape or
incest.
So, if somebody is raped, you are saying they would have to
bear that child because you consider that fetus a human being.
So, 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's where we are. We
are--many States are requiring and concerned about forcing
young people to wear masks to protect--which protects others,
not them.
They want them to bear children, they want to force them to
bear children even if they're raped. Even they are having sex
or raped by a family member, which is incest, which can be
problems genealogically if they have the child and the child
would develop, the fetus.
So, this is what we've got. We've got an effort to outlaw
abortion in all 50 States and to do it by congressional law if
possible. If that Senate and 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'll tell you what happened pre-Roe v. Wade. I was only
about 14 or 15 years old. I lived in California. I had a
relative who lived in New York State, and she became pregnant.
She was not ready to have a family.
She made that decision, the decision she made, which she
could 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. The only reason
she could do it is 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 back-alley
abortionists and sometimes lose their life because it wasn't
legal.
They had to possibly raise a lot of money to get somewhere.
They didn't have the money to get to California and to go to
Mexico. We will have abortion by financial status if this
happens. It'll happen in Mexico or it'll happen back alley. If
you've got enough money, you'll probably find somebody that
could do it.
In Memphis, you'll have to go to Illinois, which is also
expensive and time-consuming. You don't know what the laws will
be in Tennessee, whether they follow Texas and put a bounty on
people's heads for helping to finance folks to go and get an
abortion. That is anathema.
It is wrong what happened in this country in the sixties
when abortion was illegal, and the wealthy could afford it but
the non-wealthy couldn't. It's wrong to try to protect and care
about people's rights to wear a mask or not wear a mask but not
the right to have and bear a child or not get a family, even if
you might be 12 or 13 years old.
Now, abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Fetus
is not mentioned in the Constitution either. The Constitution
doesn't 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. Three justices said Roe is settled law, Roe
is the law, it's settled, it is stare decisis. It was not, and
some on the other side have said terrible decision, wrong from
the beginning and just terribly wrong.
It was right, said Kavanaugh. It was right, said Gorsuch.
It was right, said Barrett. It's right then, and it's right
now.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Professor Goodwin, is a 20-week pregnancy, unborn child, a
human being under the Constitution?
Ms. Goodwin. Under the Constitution and the 14th Amendment,
it recognizes foreign individuals as being citizens of the
United States.
Mr. Issa. No, no, okay. Born. So, is it your testimony that
constitutionally prior to the term ``born'' being exercised,
the unborn have no rights and they are not human beings?
Ms. Goodwin. According to the Constitution--
Mr. Issa. No, not--
Ms. Goodwin. Born individuals are citizens of the United
States. According to American--
Mr. Issa. I'm 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 born, is that
your testimony?
Ms. Goodwin. That is what the Constitution says and that is
what this Congress--
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Ms. Goodwin. Adopted in the 14th Amendment.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Professor.
Ms. Foster, in your opinion, is a child sucking its thumb,
knowing if it's left- or right-handed, able to feel pain, but
not yet delivered from the mother, does that child to you
represent a human being?
Ms. Foster. To me and to every embryology textbook out
there, yes. If they're not human, what are they? It's not
courts that determine reality. The reality of human life is
that a child is a human being.
Mr. Issa. Now, under existing law, if someone were to kill
that 22-24-week gestation, pregnancy, is that a crime in
virtually every State, including under Federal law?
Ms. Foster. In virtually every State, thanks to Roe v. Wade
and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, abortion can be--
Mr. Issa. No, no, I said if let's say the father of a child
kills that child. In other words, not the mother's decision. If
an outsider kills the unborn, is it a crime, not just battery,
but a crime in Federal law in most States?
Ms. Foster. Yes, that's a crime in virtually every State.
Mr. Issa. Okay, so notwithstanding the Constitution, if you
kill the unborn, you've killed a human being under State law,
even though abortion is legal.
Well, let's just go through, since we're on the subject of
law for a moment, Ms. Foster, behind me under 18 U.S.C. 1507,
is it a Federal crime to protest near a residence occupied by a
judge, a jury with the intent--or jury--with the intent to
influence the decision of a pending case?
Ms. Foster. It certainly is.
Mr. Issa. Isn't it also, even if you went to the prosecutor
or defense attorneys, also a crime?
Ms. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Issa. So, behind me, I'm trying to understand this,
here's a picture, and it's--and they're using a megaphone in
front of Justice Alito's home, and they're clearly trying to
influence it. So, is that a crime?
Ms. Foster. It is.
Mr. Issa. So, under 18 U.S.C. 1507, people are committing
crimes. Why is it we're not hearing it denounced by the pro-
choice movement, who say that they respect this decision as
long it goes their way?
Ms. Foster. Because it fits the narrative. The leaker
intended to bring chaos and public pressure into the Dobbs
case. This hearing shows that they succeeded, and those photos
demonstrate that the public is, in fact, responding to that
leak as was planned.
Mr. Issa. Now, these protesters in front of Justice
Barrett, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Alito, they don't appear to
be having the opposite in any way trying to influence the pro-
choice, if you will, Members of the Court. Is that correct that
there's no similar intimidation is going on?
Ms. Foster. That's correct.
Mr. Issa. Okay. I want you to hear a quote and give me your
comment on it. When someone says,
I think it is reprehensible. Stay away from homes and families
of elected officials and Members of the Court. You could
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
reprehensible.
Would you agree with that?
Ms. Foster. I certainly would.
Mr. Issa. Senator Dick Durbin agrees with it, but he's been
one of the lone voices willing to denounce it. I have not heard
it denounced even by one member on this dais on the other side
of the aisle.
So, Ms. Foster, a senior correspondent for Vox.com and 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, let's burn the place
down.
Is that a crime in your estimation?
Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman expired, so a brief
answer from the Witness.
Ms. Foster. Absolutely.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Mr. Chair, yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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 physicians or no OB/GYN, no family
physician providing obstetrical care. No midwives. Half of the
State.
Furthermore, hospital labor and delivery units have been
closing across Georgia for the last several decades. In 2015,
only 46 of 159 counties had such units.
Professor Goodwin, isn't it ironic that States like Georgia
want to force women to remain pregnant but seem unwilling to
help women stay alive during pregnancy?
Ms. Goodwin. 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 crafting anti-abortion bans, abortion
bans, have been the States with the highest rates of maternal
mortality.
Disproportionately, those who have been most affected have
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, because there's been so little attention
to the fact that Black women have suffered in grave and
inhumane ways in those States with abortion bans.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Dr. Robinson, is it fair
to say there is a link between abortion access and maternal
health?
Dr. Robinson. 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'm glad that you pointed out the fact that many States
are--they have decreased access to midwifery care, decreased
access to healthcare resources, labor and delivery units that
are closing down, people having to travel further and further
to access maternity care.
Particularly in Alabama, we also criminalize women who do
not present for maternity care. It's considered a form of
neglect.
In a community where 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 to
carry pregnancies to term when they don't have the resources to
support that.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Ms. Foster, you've
seemed reticent to answer the question whether or not you were
in favor of a State--I mean a Federal ban on abortions passed
by the Congress. I've looked at your Twitter account. You do
have a Twitter account, right? Correct?
Ms. Foster. Correct.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. On May 2, the day that the decision
was leaked about the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, you
posted a video--an audio message on your Twitter account, did
you not?
Ms. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You put forward the question,
``What does a post-Roe America look like? What comes after
Roe?'' Right?
Ms. Foster. Correct.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You answered your own question by
saying, ``We never really wanted Roe's reversal to make
abortion a State issue where some States protect life and other
States continue to kill and dismember.'' That's what you said,
right?
Ms. Foster. That's correct, and I don't believe I was
reticent in answering the question.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You also said that Roe--you said,
``After Roe, we don't want more victims, we want abortion
abolition.''
Ms. Foster. That is correct. I believe I'm protecting every
human being no matter where they are, so I'm not reticent at
all.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You also said that your end goal
was for the United States Supreme Court to declare that
abortion was against the Constitution.
Ms. Foster. I believe it was former President Clinton who
called for abortion to be rare--
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. That's what you said.
Ms. Foster. So, I--
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. That's what you said.
Ms. Foster. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. You are a Republican who
supports Republicans. They called you as a Witness, and that is
the Republican plan, for women in American to not have a right
to an abortion, whether or not it be the first, the second, or
in one percent of those cases that happen in the--beyond the
20th week.
You don't women to have that right for any reason
whatsoever, to protect or save the life of the mother. Or, too,
in the cases of rape and incest. Isn't that a fact?
Ms. Foster. A more humane and more just America would
provide protection and resources for all human beings.
Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman--the time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. Buck.
Mr. Buck. Ms. Foster, I'm going to direct my questions to
you. What I'm wondering is how will America be judged by future
generations, future societies? When we learn about the great
empires and cultures in school and in world history, we think
of the ancient Greeks and Romans and the--Great Britain, the
Mongols, the Mayans, the various Chinese dynasties.
We study the art and architecture, we celebrate the
science, technical, and medical advances of the people, and we
marvel at the military power of the great empires. There seems
like the great cultures all have an asterisk. The Greeks and
Romans had slaves. The Mayans and the Qin Dynasty performed
human sacrifice as to appease their gods.
When America is evaluated in the future, certainly scholars
will see us as an exceptional nation, a country with great
scientific and technological advances, beautiful art and
architecture, the most powerful military in the world,
tremendous advances in civil rights for minorities, great
universities, amazing agricultural accomplishments, space
travel, and energy production.
What will the asterisk be for America? Did we do enough to
help those with physical handicaps, mental handicaps, and
mental diseases? Did 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, develops pain receptors at seven weeks, has arms,
legs, fingers, 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 13-14 weeks. Has fully developed heart at 15
weeks.
Ms. Foster, how will future generations and future cultures
judge how we treated the most vulnerable in our society?
Ms. Foster. 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.
Mr. Buck. I appreciate your answer. I think that we could
go into more detail, quite frankly, because 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 that 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 that we can't just for a moment reflect on those
that need our protection.
Any last comments before my time runs out?
Ms. Foster. 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. Fifty-one percent, according to a
2021 Gallup poll, believe that abortion should be either
illegal in all circumstances or illegal in all, but the rarest
circumstances.
Less than a third believe 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, and the number swings more
and more pro-life the more radical bills are put forward by the
other side of the aisle.
So, when we see the New York Reproductive Health Act, for
example, we see Democrats more and more calling themselves pro-
life because they look at that kind of bill and they say if
that's what pro-choice is, I want no part of it.
So, 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 for all human beings.
Mr. Buck. Other than China and North Korea and some of
those countries, how do we compare to countries in other parts
of the world?
Ms. Foster. 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 on the subject at
all.
We are dramatically more radical than any country in
Europe, for example, to which we so often compare ourselves.
Our abortion law is so far beyond what other countries have
chosen through their elected officials, and what the American
people would choose and what we elect our elected officials to
do as they represent us.
Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to talk about
three issues that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have brought up today, political power, intimidation, and real
problems.
I want to start by asking Ms. Goodwin, is there any amount
of political power that a 12-year-old could wage to stop her
from being raped by a relative?
Ms. Goodwin. No, there isn't.
Mr. Deutch. Ms. Goodwin, is there any amount of political
power that a young woman walking down the street, raped on the
street violently and impregnated, is there any political power
that woman has that she can wield to prevent that pregnancy
from happening?
Ms. Goodwin. No.
Mr. Deutch. 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 born with perhaps organs or
develop outside of the body, or that her life may be at risk
for delivering that child, or both?
Is there any amount of political power that woman who so
desperately wanted to be pregnant and finds herself in this
situation, is there political power that could have prevented
that from happening?
Dr. Robinson. Absolutely not.
Mr. Deutch. So, this is about power. Let me just ask, it's
the power for women to be able to make these decisions that are
protected by the Constitution.
Let me ask, and I'm sorry, is it Arrambide?
Ms. Arrambide. Arrambide.
Mr. Deutch. Arrambide, sorry. Let me ask you about
intimidation, Ms. Arrambide. Tell me about the intimidation
that your father felt doing his job helping women.
Ms. Arrambide. Sure. So, my father provided abortions in
the seventies, eighties, and nineties. One of the things that
was prevalent at that time was the wanted dead abortion
providers posters.
So, 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 that 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 that he'd had the same office for years. The FBI agent was
sure that he was going to target my father. That's what he
lived with.
He did his work and he provided care for so many Texans
across central and South Texas because he was a hero. He
provided healthcare that they so desperately needed and wanted.
Mr. Deutch. There are so many women and their families who
are grateful for that. Dr. David Gunn, who was gunned down
outside of an abortion clinic where he worked doing that work.
Dr. Barnett Slepian, 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's 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. Shortage of baby food a real problem, baby
formula.
Dr. Robinson, let me let you finish. What's the real
problem a woman faces when we slam the door on them and tell
them rape, incest, they may die of pregnancy, none of that
matters anymore? What's that real problem?
Dr. Robinson. Thank you. First, I just wanted to mention,
when you talk about the harassment, and I think 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 and 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 the real problems that people face
the Turnaway Study, it clearly highlights the implications
people not being able to access abortion care.
Many of these people are going to fall into poverty. They
have difficulty caring for the children that they already have.
That's what the real problem is.
Mr. Deutch. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I seek
unanimous consent to enter into a record a statement for the
record by Sarah Parshall Perry, Senior Legal Fellow with the
Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage
Foundation.
Chair Nadler. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA
FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
Dr. Robinson, I asked you earlier how one qualifies as
being fully human, and you responded by saying that no one
becomes a human, or that 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 and 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 an unborn
child is a human being.
As the Life Training Institute summarizes,
From the earliest stages of development, the unborn are
distinct, 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 religious view, but a
matter of the science of embryology.
In its 1859 report on criminal abortion, the American
Medical Association, no less, acknowledged that, ``The
independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a
living being was a scientific truth.'' Nothing has changed
since that time. For more than 150 years doctors have known
that life begins at conception.
A 1981 report to the United States Senate states,
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that
conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being.
And a being that is alive is a member of the human species.
There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless
medical, biological, and scientific writings.
So, 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's a human being. All of you here are confusing human value
with human function. You are defining personhood by what
somebody does rather than what they are.
Scott Klusendorf summarized it this way, he said,
``Although human beings differ immensely 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 with
certain inalienable rights. The first listed in our declaration
is the right to life.
Since the medical doctor here wants to deny the facts and
reality, let me ask the abortion advocate, Ms. Arrambide, to
answer my questions on this subject. Ma'am, you testified that
you are, ``Unapologetic in seeking in unrestricted abortion
access.'' So, I'm wondering at what point is it not okay to
abort a child, what age of gestation?
Ms. Arrambide. 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 medical care that they
need within their communities, is something that should be
afforded everyone.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Great, okay, so you support late-
term abortion?
Ms. Arrambide. I support all people and trust all--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That means late-term abortion. Do
you support partial birth abortion? In other words, the child
is half-delivered, and then the woman says, my right, I want to
take that one out. You support that?
Ms. Arrambide. I trust people to make decisions about their
body.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Wow, wow. Okay. What about--so
abortion should be allowed then, by your definition, for any
reason, for any purpose, at any stage, right?
Ms. Arrambide. I trust people to make decisions about their
body. Then when relevant, I think that they need to consult
their medical practitioners--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay.
Ms. Arrambide. Not Congress.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay, if it is--listen, let me
just ask you this question. If it is not lawful and morally
acceptable to take the life of a 10-year-old child, I assume
you agree with that, right? That would be wrong, correct?
Ms. Arrambide. I believe that is wrong.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay, and a two-year-old child,
same thing, that would be murder, we would all agree that's
wrong.
Then what is the principal distinction between the human
being that is two-years-old, or nine-months-old, or one-week-
old, or one-hour-old, and one that is eight inches further up
the birth canal in the utero? What's the difference? Why is it
okay in the latter case and not the former cases?
Ms. Arrambide. I trust people to determine what to do with
their own bodies.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Wow.
Ms. Arrambide. Full stop.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Wow. Full stop indeed. That
describes right there exactly what this is about. There is a
legal issue here, but underneath that is a moral issue. It's
about reality, it's about science, the advancement of medical
technology.
You're talking about unborn children, and your full stop is
that you will support the termination of that child at any
time, and that is frightening. This is why this decision should
be turned to the popular will of the people, and hopefully
they'll protect the sanctity of every single human life and
live up to the standards of our Declaration of Independence.
I yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. 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?
Ms. Goodwin. So, historically, during the period of
slavery, we had Confederate slave States, many of those are
States that today seek to ban abortion, that denied African
Americans fundamental human rights. This Congress provided
those rights through the 13th Amendment and 14th Amendment,
upheld by the United States Supreme Court.
We've seen the dismantling of those rights through voter
suppression. Historically we've seen African American women
suffer in inordinate ways, and that suffering continues. In the
State of Mississippi, the subject of the Dobbs opinion, 80
percent 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 carrying to term a pregnancy than by having an
abortion. In those States, we still see disparities in terms of
pay for Black women.
These histories are something that are undeniable and that
place us in the space of a new Jane Crow, a system that from
slavery through Jim Crow has resulted in the unequal treatment
of Black women.
I thank you for the question.
Ms. Bass. Sure, and just along those--along that line, what
do you think if the Roe decision is overturned, which is where
we believe it's going, how do you think, though, that relates
or puts in jeopardy other civil rights and liberties?
Ms. Goodwin. Well, other civil rights and liberties are at
stake, even though in the leaked 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
than real since Justice Alito himself authored the opinion in
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which itself fought to dismantle part
of the Affordable Care Act provision that companies would
provide comprehensive contraceptive care to their employees.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby provided exception in that case for
companies that identified themselves as having religious
rights, something that had never existed before Justice Alito's
opinion.
So, we see LGBTQ equality on the line, contraceptive access
on the line, including IUDs, which are not abortifacients 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 will see also sex education targeted as well by
these individuals in these legislatures.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. It's an incredible place we find
ourselves in now.
Ms. 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 wanted to know what you thought of that statement, and I
also want to know what Professor Goodwin thinks of that
statement.
Ms. Arrambide. 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.
Ms. Bass. Let me just ask, I asked you that question
especially because I heard your testimony about where you were
in your life at that time.
Ms. Arrambide. Sure.
Ms. Bass. So, I'm just, that's how I wanted you to think
about it from that perspective and listening to your very
impactful testimony.
Ms. Arrambide. 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 alive to
continue or to start my medical treatment for my mental health
issues.
I wouldn't have been alive to have two pregnancies, two
health pregnancies, despite how difficult those pregnancies
were. I wouldn't be the mother that I am today and have the two
wonderful children that are my whole world. Because pregnancy--
Ms. Bass. Do you say that because of your mental health
status at the time, that you were not well?
Ms. Arrambide. Absolutely. My mental health status, I
wasn't able to get up out of my bed. I wasn't able to walk my
dog, take a shower. That happened for months and months at a
time.
As someone that's gone through two complete pregnancies and
carried two pregnancies to term who had placenta previa, who
had a breech birth, who had an emergency C-section that could
have taken the life of my child or myself, I absolutely, like,
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. When you don't want to be pregnant, you
don't want to continue your pregnancy, there are so many things
that can affect you and cannot have a good outcome.
So, 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 anybody who's pregnant and
doesn't want to be.
Chair Nadler. The time of gentlelady has expired. Mrs.
Spartz.
Mrs. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is an important issue, but we are Judiciary Committee.
So, even though this issue is say life and death issue, we'll
talk about judicial implications and we'll talk law a little
bit. So, I want to talk to Professor Goodwin a little bit.
What's happened if Casey and Roe are overturned? Can you
still have abortion?
Ms. Goodwin. If Casey and Roe are overturned, then it means
that there will be laws that are triggered 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. So,
people who will need those services will have to travel, if
they can, to get to those States where they can be able to
terminate their pregnancies.
Mrs. Spartz. Right, so there is still going to be States
will have to decide, and will have a situation, we'll have some
more liberal States, some more conservative States.
Ultimately the States will make these decisions at the
State level, which is really how we were founded as a country.
The States have making decisions and the Court is going to make
a decision that, constitutionality decision.
So, who do you think should make a final decision on
something where it is your constitutional rights, which entity
at our Federal level?
Ms. Goodwin. Well, to be clear, there was actually a civil
war about fundamental rights in the United States that were not
just about some States being able to carry on whatever they
wanted to do. That was the very point of the Civil War, where
the lives of Black people were actually at stake.
So, if you would then repeat because I thought that was
important to clarify.
Mrs. Spartz. So, what is decision, we have a constitutional
amendment, right. If the States decide to do that, then we can
fight wars, but ultimately which power, which branch of our
Federal government has an ultimate decision to decide what is
protected by our constitution, which branch?
Ms. Goodwin. Well, the Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter
of the land, but--
Mrs. Spartz. So, the Supreme Court. So, do you believe that
we have Supreme Court as an authority? Please answer, do you
believe that Supreme Court authority to rule?
I might maybe didn't like some other rulings, and I don't,
but do you think that is really the decision of the Supreme
Court? We're giving them that authority.
Do you believe every time we don't like, we should start
packing the Court? What do you think it will lead to? Because
you don't like decisions, I might not like decisions. So, what
is going to create our country with every time that we do not
like some decisions, we start mangling the Supreme Court. Do
you think it's dangerous?
Ms. Goodwin. Well, with all due respect, so that I can
answer your question.
Mrs. Spartz. Yes, please.
Ms. Goodwin. I would say that it has been this Congress
that has played a very important role in American law. It was
this Congress, for example, that ratified the 13th Amendment
abolishing slavery.
It was this Congress that ratified and drafted the 14th
Amendment, which provided citizenship and equal protection
under law and substantive due process to people who were then
freed from human enslavement.
It was this Congress that then struck down Jim Crow laws in
the State 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--
Mrs. Spartz. That's right, I completely agree with you, so
we have a process, right. We have a process of Supreme Court
rulings, and we have constitutional amendments, right, that
have been ratified by the State.
Do you think this is still a valid process? Do you support
that this is the valid process of our constitutional republic?
Ms. Goodwin. Thank you so much for that question. That is
the process of this republic, and this has been important that
the Supreme Court and this Congress has stepped in where there
have been States that have wanted to enforce human enslavement,
kidnap, and trafficking of African Americans. It has been this
Congress that has played a pivotal role--
Mrs. Spartz. No doubt, but it has to go through the
constitutional amendment. Do you think Congress should be
exercising pressure by packing the Court and putting pressure
on the judges and activists on the Court?
Or do you think it's important to have a strength of that
institution to hold us to the constitutional republic? Do you
believe that political pressure on the Court is a good idea,
regardless of what it is? Because it can come from both sides.
Ms. Goodwin. Well, it's a very important question that you
asked about these institutions being able to operate
independently, and that is critically important, such as this
hearing today, which is directly connected to urgent healthcare
matters in the United States. So, I'm glad that you and your
colleagues are hosting this particular hearing--
Mrs. Spartz. Thank you. My time has expired, but yeah,
yeah, I appreciate, my time has expired. I appreciate. I hope
we have constructive conversations. Because we have a
separation of power, and it's important for us to hold our
institutions strong and not politicize the Courts.
I yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for convening this
group of experts for today's hearing to discuss the ongoing
crisis in our country.
Abortion is healthcare, plain and simple. A person's
decision on whether to become a parent is one of the most
important that they can make in their life. A woman's decision
on whether or not to have an abortion should be hers alone,
period.
Across America every day, this fundamental right to
healthcare is being dismantled by politicians, usually men,
pushing false narratives to control women's bodies. Their
ultimate goal is a national ban on abortion in America.
The world they're pushing for is deeply terrifying, a world
without any abortion even for rape or incest, a world where
women are criminalized not only for getting an abortion, but
potentially for miscarriage or IVF treatment. A world where
healthcare providers are hunted down and arrested and the
vigilantes that hunt them are rewarded.
It's incredible to me this fundamental constitutional
right, enshrined more than 50 years ago, is again up for
debate. It's unbelievable that we're even having this debate
after we've seen the disastrous effects when women lose access
to abortion care.
So, 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, but apparently still needs to be
done.
With that, I'd like to move on to a couple of questions.
First, Professor Goodwin, can you discuss when one considers
that miscarriage happens in 10-15 percent 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 and how the Courts have
begun to do that.
Ms. Goodwin. Thank you very much for that question. This is
urgently important. We saw aspects of this in the late 1980s
and 1990s. Black women and Brown women were euphemistically the
canaries in the coal mine in cases in Mississippi, such as the
case of Rennie Gibbs, a 16-year-old who was charged with
depraved murder, a Black 16-year-old, because she had a still
birth.
The case of Regina McKnight, the first woman in this
country to be charged with murder for having a still birth, a
young, African American woman in her early 20s. This will chill
individuals wanting to even receive prenatal care.
For individuals who want to, women who want to carry their
pregnancies to term, but live in hostile environments,
suffering communities where there are toxins that might make
their pregnancies vulnerable, they will be people afraid to
actually go to seek medical care because of the possibility of
being criminally punished.
It also creates pressures on doctors and nurses to spy and
surveil and turn in information on their patients. Patients
want to be able to get good quality healthcare, and they don't
need being policed by their doctors and nurses, and we
certainly don't need to seek criminally punishing them when
they have miscarriages and still births.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, thank you very much.
Dr. Robinson, you were being asked some pretty wild
theoretical questions earlier about abortions being committed
as the baby is halfway out of the birth canal, which of course
is not how abortion happens in this country. It's not a thing.
It's good television, it's just not true.
Your time was cut short. Can you please give us a more
accurate picture of when abortions typically happen during a
pregnancy. Do you they happen--what percentage happen in the
first 12 weeks? Then, finally, can you explain some of the
scenarios that may lead a woman to seek an abortion later in
the pregnancy.
Dr. Robinson. 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 gestational age.
So, sometimes pregnancies that have progressed later, but
are later determined to have a lethal anomaly, they may--those
are the ones in that rare instance where a pregnant person may
opt to terminate that pregnancy as opposed to continuing it
until she goes into labor or into--or to term in those instance
where it may not be viable outside of the womb, despite the
gestation age, and continue to carry the pregnancy.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I'm going to try to be the first
person who gets the correct pronunciation, Arrambide. During
the process that you described to us 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?
Ms. Arrambide. Thank you. I believe I was trusted to make
that decision because there weren't as many onerous
restrictions put upon my access to care at the time. I think
people are not trusted now, and 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. Robinson referenced,
that can be determined in consultation with their doctor, and
not a Congressman. Thank you.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. Ms.
Fischbach.
Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I absolutely welcome the opportunity to speak about the
humanity of the unborn child and the science that proves it.
The unborn baby has a heartbeat, a separate DNA, its own blood
type, fingerprints, arms, legs, hands, and 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 over
the Supreme Court on an unfinished, leaked 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 to--and created a right that did not exist.
We are a nation of laws. Rule of law only works when we
follow the actual text of both 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, and 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 Chair denounce the leak. Too many
Democrats have been silent on the leak, despite lecturing us in
this Committee and elsewhere about institutional norms and the
importance of following regular order.
The leak was a break of institutional norms, trust, and
confidentiality. The Democrats did not immediately denounce
that leak, and most still have not done so shows that their
words are hollow. They are for institutional norms only when it
suits them.
Take this hearing, for example. As Ms. Foster so rightly
put it in her written testimony, by holding this hearing before
the Dobbs decision comes out, this Committee risks 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 and institutional norms,
stop attacking the Supreme Court, denounce the leak as the
despicable Act that it is, denounce the bullying 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 our laws instead of the Courts.
With that, Ms. Foster, I just 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
discussion?
Ms. Foster. 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, for
getting women out of bad situations.
I think every abortion story, there's a common thread
there, and that's every woman who's had an abortion has been
let down in some way, myself included.
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 toward
abortion.
That's why I appreciate what you and your colleagues are
doing here and I'm just so grateful that you're here standing
for the human rights of all human beings.
Ms. Fischbach. Well, and thank you for being here, too, Ms.
Foster. I just did want to add in my last few seconds, for 50
years, pro-lifers have been standing with the mothers and their
children.
You talk about pregnancy centers where pro-lifers wrap
their arms around those women and those babies before and after
birth. 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.
With that, I yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for convening
this incredibly important hearing. I thank the Witnesses for
your presence, and I want to direct my questions to Ms.
Goodwin.
I thank you for your virtual presence here, as well as for
your legal expertise.
This seems to me to be a conflict between those of us who
want to make sure that a woman has the freedom to make her own
healthcare decisions and those who want to criminalize
healthcare, jam the women of this country with government-
mandated pregnancies, even in the case of rape or incest.
Now, this draft opinion by Justice Alito regarding Dobbs v.
Jackson Women's Health Organization calls for the removal of a
constitutional right for more than 100 million American women,
I believe 167 million to be exact.
Ms. Goodwin, if Justice Alito's draft becomes the final
majority opinion of the Court, how many years of judicial
precedent would the Supreme Court be overturning?
Ms. Goodwin. Well, if we're talking about Roe v. Wade
specifically, it would be 49 years of Supreme Court
jurisprudence. I would even suggest that we look back to
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, where the United States Supreme
Court made clear that reproductive freedom and autonomy was a
human right in the United States.
So, we actually miss the mark by just looking to Roe v.
Wade. If we actually look for a case that involves a man who
was being denied reproductive autonomy in 1942, the Supreme
Court said that was unconstitutional.
Mr. Jeffries. This is an extraordinary step that the Court
may take, a runaway, right-wing, radical majority of the
Supreme Court. To justify his opinion in the draft, Justice
Alito quotes and refers to Sir Matthew Hale, I believe
approximately 98 times. Is that correct?
Ms. Goodwin. A number of times. I can't express that's
exactly the number of times that he does.
It is alarming nonetheless that he does, considering that
Sir Matthew Hale was one who wrote about coverture, meaning
that women had no independent identity apart from their
husband, and that also meant that women could legally beaten by
their husbands and legally raped by their husbands too.
Mr. Jeffries. Trust me, trust me, Ms. Goodwin, we're going
to get there. Now, Justice Alito described Sir Matthew Hale as
a great and eminent legal authority, is that correct?
Ms. Goodwin. That is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. A great and eminent legal authority.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
a piece in the Washington Post on Roe. Alito cites a judge who
treated women as witches and property.
Chair Nadler. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MR. JEFFRIES FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Jeffries. Now, Sir Hale, an English judge from the mid-
1600s, actually sentenced two women to death who he deemed as
witches, is that correct?
Ms. Goodwin. That may very well be correct. I would say
that he cites several other legal scholars as well who
supported those ideas and views.
Mr. Jeffries. 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?
Ms. Goodwin. That's correct.
Mr. Jeffries. 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
hath given of herself in this kind unto her husband which she
can retract.'' So essentially--
Ms. Goodwin. That's right.
Mr. Jeffries. --Justice Hale or Sir Hale viewed women as
property that could be violently raped and abused without
consequence. Is that true?
Ms. Goodwin. That is true.
Mr. Jeffries. So, most of the legal basis for Justice
Alito's draft opinion and his doctrine stems from a
misogynistic so-called scholar from the 17th century who died
before a single word of the Constitution was written. Is that
true?
Ms. Goodwin. That is correct. He was not from the United
States.
Mr. Jeffries. The notion that these are individuals who
want to speak about original intent and would discard 49 years
of settled precedent here is outrageous. It's problematic. That
is what will undermine the confidence of the American people in
our judiciary. We're going to continue to stand for the freedom
of a woman to make her own healthcare decisions. Thank you for
your testimony.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chair. On 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. The timing of this hearing makes it suspect in
and of itself, the line of questioning.
What 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 judges' homes. As DHS says, it's going to anticipate
increased violence. In a way, that whole aspect of this is
merely distraction because this isn't about that necessarily
and it isn't about saving a mom's life. That arises in less
than one-tenth of one percent of all pregnancies related to
abortion.
Advances in medical technology have developed so far that
it's almost always possible to save the lives of both mom and
baby. This isn't about pregnant men or how you define women.
This isn't about personal autonomy because science has
progressed so far to tell us about the individuality of that
baby, the development, what the baby looks like, how it grows,
whether it feels pain, recognizes sounds and voices, et cetera.
No, what this is really about is merely 65 million little
persons who've been aborted, killed since the Roe v. Wade
decision. This is about killing babies. That's what this
hearing is about today.
Comedian Laurie Kilmartin appeared on MSNBC to fantasize
about having sex with the person who leaked the Supreme Court's
draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson, then joyfully aborting the
baby out of spite if it turned out the leaker was a
conservative. This is about an Arizona State Senator, a
Democrat State Senator arguing that his own foster children
should've been aborted. This is about Pennsylvania's Lieutenant
Governor John Fetterman 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
Hilary Rodham 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 that taking a life--this is from
Michael Knowles I'm quoting here. This is about shouting that
taking a life of the innocent in a womb is not a big deal.
Quote, ``the late great Norm Macdonald once mocked a friend's
suggestion at the time a common refrain that the worst aspect
of disgraced comedian Bill Cosby's sexual crimes was,'' quote,
``the hypocrisy.'' ``No,'' Norm responded. ``I actually think
it was the raping. It's my feeling most rapists are
hypocrites.''
A man willing to commit enormous sins will more easily
commit lesser sins. One struggles to imagine a more egregious
sin than killing an innocent little baby. This is about the
left telling pro-life Americans they should shut up when pro-
life advocates protest Roe v. Wade and pray for it to be
overturned but advocating for groups to violate Federal law and
protest at Supreme Court justices' homes to intimidate them.
When some have failed to condemn violence like the arson at
a crisis pregnancy center in Wisconsin or Oregon. Attacking
churches and houses of worship who preach the sanctity of life.
Remaining silent when the Virginia Attorney General who warns
pro-abortion protestors that they must refrain from harassing
worshipers gets his window shot at. When the Secretary of the
Treasury testifies that abortion is actually good for the
economy apparently forgetting 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, one of our colleagues said,
nothing will be enough to protect our democracy and our
fundamental right short of sending this far right majority on
the Court to its rightful place in the minority and into the
dustbin of history by expanding the Supreme Court. We have
heard--let's just ask Ms. Foster. Is abortion an Act of love?
Ms. Foster. Never.
Mr. Biggs. Are pro-life policies racist?
Ms. Foster. Absolutely not.
Mr. Biggs. The reason I ask that is at a House Oversight
Committee hearing, ``A State of 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, Ms. Foster?
Ms. Foster. It is not. How many times you repeat a lie does
not make it true.
Mr. Biggs. So, we had a Member of the House testify that
abortion restrictions are part of the intertwining systems of
oppression that deny Black, Indigenous, and people of color
their constitutional rights. Is that accurate, Ms. Foster?
Ms. Foster. Absolutely not. Pro-life policies are meant to
protect all human beings.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. My time is up. I yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chair. We are talking about a
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're going to pursue,
whether you want to have a family, who you're going to marry.
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.
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.
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 and 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
and 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 kill 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. If she doesn't do it, she's a criminal.
That's what they want to be there for.
Ms. Goodwin, if this leaked opinion is finalized, will this
open the floodgates to allow States to criminalize a woman's
personal healthcare decisions?
Ms. Goodwin. Yes, it will. We've already seen signs of that
coming from the State legislatures that has been the most
active in drafting various kinds of abortion bans even before
now.
Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Goodwin, would this opinion invite States
to pass even more restrictive laws that would provide more
rights to a rapist than to his victim?
Ms. Goodwin. That's right. We've already seen that where
States have wanted to empower and embolden rapists and even
their family Members to be able to sue a woman who has been
sexually assaulted and raped.
Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Goodwin, from this opinion, does it also
flow that you could ban contraception?
Ms. Goodwin. Absolutely. From this decision, which
criticizes justices who supported Roe v. Wade, those are the
same justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. So, this particular
draft opinion, if made a reality in June, it would mean
potentially that even contraception could be something that
could be outlawed or that's safe to seek to outlaw that and
that this is a Court that might allow that.
Mr. Swalwell. Chair, I thank you again for holding this
hearing. These guys do not belong at the kitchen table of any
woman in American as she makes this very personal decision. We
know that if they force this decision on somebody, they're not
going to be there for anything else and I yield back.
Chair Nadler. Gentleman yields back. At this time, the
Committee will stand in recess for five minutes. The Committee
stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chair Nadler. The Committee will come to order. Mr.
McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Chair, there are really two
issues that are before us. One is the judicial issue over the
role of the Court in our constitutional framework which we
should be defending and the policy question of abortion which
we should be debating.
I think it's alright to vigorously debate or protest a
Supreme Court decision. I think it's alright to change laws or
amend the Constitution in response to a Supreme Court decision.
It is not alright to intimidate the justices during their
deliberations.
The judiciary is supposed to be focused on the law and the
Constitution. It's the one branch of government that's
insulated from politics and political pressures for that very
reason. Justice is often depicted as blindfolded because it's
supposed to take no note of the politics or personalities
before them or their favoritism or bias that's attached to
them.
One exception in that depiction, by the way, can be found
in our old Supreme Court chamber in the Capitol. Justice is not
blindfolded when she's looking to the Constitution. The Supreme
Court fulfills this function by an extensive process of
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 reason dictates.
This process is essential to the role of the Court. The
unprecedented breach of that confidentiality by the leaking of
a draft opinion is catastrophic to that process. For the Chair
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 left's
attacks on our Constitution and its fundamental institutions.
There's no blanking the fact that the Supreme Court is under
sustained attack by the left. They refuse to protect the
deliberations of the Court from political pressure and
influence.
Indeed, they've launched a concerted effort to apply
political pressure by threats such as those as 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.
The Judiciary Committee not only is not standing in defense of
our judiciary. It's leading the attacks.
Conservatives for 50 years have abhorred the Roe decision.
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 this branch or more precisely the
legislative branches of the 50 States.
This debate is appropriate in this body before this
Committee. By the way, that's all the Dobbs decision says. I
agree with the Chair that the decision to become a parent is a
uniquely personal one which the government has no right to
intrude upon. The fine point of the question is, when does one
become a parent? That's really the center of this debate.
Ms. Arrambide, you said that--and it really struck home.
You said you trust people to decide what to do with their own
bodies. Is that an accurate depiction of what you said?
Ms. Arrambide. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. 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?
Ms. Arrambide. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. Okay. Well, then we have the perfect
agreement on that. 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?
If you can't answer that question, then we have to
entertain the possibility that maybe 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 in
forums like this, forums that represent all the people which is
precisely where the Dobbs draft would place that decision. Ms.
Foster, as a society, we've got a clear consensus that if a
human being has a brain wave and a heartbeat, they have an
indisputable right to life. They cannot be legally harmed.
Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McClintock. Let me just ask, is that a standard we
should be--that is a standard we apply to end of life. Is that
also a standard we should apply to the beginning of life?
Ms. Foster. It absolutely is, yes.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr.
Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Abe Lincoln once wrote a
beautiful passage in which he compared the Constitution and the
Declaration. He said, ``the Constitution is like a silver
picture framing the apple of gold.'' The apple of gold he said
is liberty, liberty for each and every person in the country.
The silver frame 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 who
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 to overthrow a
democratic election.
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 is an illuminating
hearing, Mr. Chair. 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.
If I've got that wrong, I would invite Ms. Foster to
correct me. Do I have it wrong, yes or no?
Ms. Foster. If we added rape and incest exceptions, would
you vote for it?
Mr. Raskin. 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 age 16. 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 MAGA party wants to turn what is today and what has
been for 50 years a constitutional right into a Federal crime.
They want to do it before the 4th of July. I want America to
reflect on what's going on here.
My wife, Sarah, and I have been parents for 30 years.
There's nothing I'm prouder of than raising three human beings
of great decency and character. I've only been in public office
for 15 years, half of that time.
I venture to say I've come to known politicians pretty
well. I hope it offends none of my colleagues here. I must say
I trust my 29-year-old and 25-year-old daughters infinitely
more to make the personal life planning decisions about when,
where, and how to start their families and all the related
attendant personal healthcare decisions about their bodies and
their lives than I would ever trust the class of politicians to
make those decisions for them.
That's what this is about. I've served with great public
officials from both parties, people like John Lewis, people
like Liz Cheney, people like Nancy Pelosi. 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? Abraham Lincoln was right about something else. He
said, ``government cannot endure permanently half slave and
half free.''
Ultimately, I am sure that Abe Lincoln is 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, Mr. Chair.
Chair Nadler. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There have been a number
of statements made 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 and the draft opinion,
. . . and to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or
not mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns
the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.
Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on
precedence that do not concern abortion.
They've said that there's no question what Republicans
want. They want a Federal law, that Republicans are radical. Is
respecting the sanctity of life, Ms. Foster, is understanding
that all life is precious, that we are endowed with that life
by our creator, the special right to life we have mentioned in
the document that started this whole thing we call America, is
there anything real radical about that?
Ms. Foster. Not at all.
Mr. Jordan. Life is precious, isn't it?
Ms. Foster. Life is the most precious thing. Without life,
we can't exercise any other right.
Mr. Jordan. Here's what the Court said. The Court said
we're not even going to make an ultimate decision. We're just
going to leave it to the respective States. The State in
question in the decision that was in front of the Court that
they wrote about in the draft opinion, State of Mississippi,
they said this. They said 15 weeks.
They said at five weeks, an unborn child's heart begins
beating. At eight weeks, the child begins to move in the womb.
At 10 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.
That all happens even before the deadline they set. We
could disagree with that, but that's the case in front of the
Court. They're saying, we're going to let States make this
decision.
The State of Mississippi, through their elected officials,
passed a law that said that. They now say that's radical. What
is radical in my mind is the position they take.
We just asked a question of one of our colleagues who
wouldn't answer the question. What is radical is the position
they take because they say, no limits. Is that right, Ms.
Foster?
Ms. Foster. Absolutely accurate. You look at New York's
Reproductive Health Act. You look at the Women's Health
Protection Act. They go so far beyond codifying Roe, so to
speak, they expand Roe. They do so much--
Mr. Jordan. I was thinking about what they passed last week
or what they tried to pass last week in the United States
Senate, right? You want to talk about radical. Tell the Members
of this Committee and the American people what they tried to
pass in the Senate last week.
Ms. Foster. The Women's Health Protection Act would wipe
out more than 500 protective laws. It would invalidate informed
consent provisions, waiting periods, parental notification,
much less consent. Anything that you--
Mr. Jordan. Go back to that one. So, a minor is going to
have this surgery done, this procedure done. Some legislatures
elected by the people at respective States say, you know what?
We think it may make some sense to tell their mom and dad that
they know what's going on. The bill that the Senate tried to
pass last week got rid of that?
Ms. Foster. My teenager couldn't get an aspirin in school
without parental permission and consent but apparently can go
get an abortion without even notification under the Women's
Health Protection Act.
Mr. Jordan. That sounds pretty radical. That would include
all the way. I don't even like to talk about this because it
seems just so wrong. All the way up until just moments before
that little child is about to be born, is that right, Ms.
Foster?
Ms. Foster. On their birthday.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah. Frankly, it's even worse because we had a
former Democrat governor in a State not too far from here who
said it shouldn't stop there. Shouldn't stop there. Governor
Northam said actually, no, no, it's not even up to that point
which is just unbelievable. It's even past that when someone,
the strong, could end the life of the weak. Is that right?
Ms. Foster. He did. He was on public radio and said that
after the child was born, then the child would be kept
comfortable while a debate ensued about whether or not the
child would be given any kind of medical care.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah. As Mr. McClintock pointed out, that child
certainly would have a beating heart, certainly have a
functioning brain, everything else. We had a democratic
governor in a State not too far from here who said what he--
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 makes sense
for their State. I know where you and I are. We think all life
is precious and should be protected.
That's not what Mississippi said. They don't want to let
that happen because they want the radical bill that they tried
to pass in the United States Senate last week that would allow
all kinds of things happen that the American people know
instinctively is wrong. I yield back.
Chair Nadler. Gentleman yields back. Ms. Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 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 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 galls 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 the very people who have opposed funding for
contraception to prevent pregnancy or oppose the child tax
credit which clearly reduced hunger or even advocated to
separate thousands of immigrant kids from their parents or
withhold baby formula for babies, babies at the border.
In fact, States with the most draconian abortion
restrictions also have the highest maternal mortality rates.
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
is the anti-abortion, anti-freedom advocates doing to protect
the lives of Black mothers and infants? I have a number of
questions. So, if you could keep your answers short.
Dr. Robinson. Yes, they're 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
effective contraception.
We need access to healthcare before you become pregnant. We
need access to care beyond 60 days postpartum. We need to be
able to send our children to childcare if we do choose to
parent. We need access to effective abortion and abortion in
your own community if you choose not to be a parent.
Ms. Jayapal. 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 healthcare
to people and want to tear down the Affordable Care Act or
Medicaid. Ms. Arrambide, how much will abortion bans strain our
already overburdened healthcare system and harm the health of
pregnant people and children of color?
Ms. Arrambide. Thank you for your question. I mean, we're
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 pay for their
procedure. Then the regular, like, health system, especially in
Texas, we've already seen how overrun it is.
We're a State that has cut family planning, cut access to
prenatal care. We don't pay attention to the high maternal
mortality rates. In addition to that, we have not expanded
Medicare. Like, we don't take care of the people that are in
our communities now. We've seen the devastating effects of
these types of bans, in Texas especially.
Ms. Jayapal. 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, Ms. Glenn Foster's organization has written
articles and amicus briefs in opposition to a wide array of
reproductive healthcare services, including intrauterine
devices, Plan B, in vitro fertilization. So, they're clearly
not interested in preventing unintended pregnancies.
In fact, Justice Alito in 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 precedence around contraception and 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 they also working to revoke
other rights as well?
Ms. Goodwin. Other rights. Other rights within the
reproductive health space and rights that are associated with
the right to birth. So that when Justice Alito in this draft
opinion says, ``turn to your States and go vote,'' how does one
do that effectively when this Supreme Court has dismantled
parts of the Voting Rights Act and where it has become very
difficult for poor people and people of color to be able to
vote in these States.
Ms. Jayapal. So, in response to Mr. Jordan, my colleague
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?
Ms. Goodwin. That's right.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. In 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 mandated pregnancy and disproportionately harm
pregnant people and children of color. It's on us to ensure
that these rights remain. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Scanlon. [Presiding.] The gentlewoman's time has
expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Steube, for five minutes.
Mr. Steube. 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. Between 1975 and
2012, it was more than a million a year.
That equates to more than 2,700 children a day whose life
was taken during that period. In my State of Florida, it's
approximately 70,000 a year. Now, let me put those numbers in
perspective for you.
Sixty-three million is more than the number of deaths in
the Holocaust, Stalin's forced famine, the Cambodian genocide,
and the Armenian genocide combined. Twenty-seven hundred per
day is more than the death toll at Pearl Harbor and just shy of
September 11th. That happens every single day in this country.
The 70,000 per year in Florida is more than the combined
populations of the cities of Punta Gorda, Venice, Sebring, and
Arcadia that are in my district every single year in Florida
alone. Sixty-three million unborn babies since Roe v. Wade,
many of them would be adults now. They would be contributing to
our communities, to our economy, and making our world a better
place.
They never had a chance because a court created a right
where none existed in the law. At some point in the 20th
century, liberals developed a bizarre obsession with a sinister
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 elected 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, been stopped by a member of
their own party.
The Supreme Court in Roe inventing a right to abort despite
no law allowing it and the Court ignored that such a right had
never been recognized in the 184-year history of the Court.
Today we may stand on the verge of righting that wrong. Instead
of accepting this fact and turning their attention to the
border crisis, inflation, gas prices, or the crime epidemic,
Democrats are doubling down on their obsession with killing the
unborn.
For instance, in legislation this Congress, which has been
alluded to here lately, Democrats have sought to legalize
abortion up to the point of birth. Some Democrats have famously
now explained how they would euthanize children outside the
womb shortly after they are born and then explained 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.
Their infatuation with and admiration for abortion is one
of the most shameful occurrences in American political history.
You want to talk about genocide. Look no further than United
States where 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 accomplished stated mission. Even the Chair
couldn't help himself in bringing the issues up in his opening
statement. There's been another Member that's alluded to it.
The same people who called January 6th protestors domestic
terrorists and insurrectionists are now cheering on protestors
violating Federal laws. They attempt to intimidate the Supreme
Court justices at their homes. Of course, Biden's weaponized
and politicized Department of Justice, who would rather
investigate parents protesting at school boards turned a blind
eye to clear violations of Federal law that is happening right
now at the justices' homes.
I'm sure if we had Trump supporters at the homes of liberal
judges, it would be the next existential threat to democracy.
FBI swat teams with what Democrats now call weapons of mass
destruction would be raiding their homes at night, swiftly
locking them up into solitary confinement with no bail while
they awaited trial for over a year, full stop. So, Ms. Foster,
in my limited time I have left, can you speak further about the
sale of child tissue, in other words, the sale of body parts of
aborted children by Planned Parenthood and other abortionists?
Ms. Foster. 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
grandstand-
ing, fear mongering, misinformation, falsehoods, and
intimidation.
What's true is that we are in favor of supporting life and
protecting all human beings. We did that for pregnant and
parenting human beings when we filed a brief in Young v. UPS.
We do that for children in the womb.
We shine a light on exactly what Planned Parenthood is
doing with the bodies of these children that it aborts and
other abortion industry players. All too frequently, they're
selling these body parts for research, for examination. We have
heard even that it's been exposed that they are often even
burned, incinerated to power our streetlamps.
That is simply inhumane. That is the core of the abortion
industry, is treating people like things and stripping away the
humanity of human beings that science has known have been human
beings for many, many decades, long before Roe, that we saw
even in the 1960s on the cover of Time.
Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time as expired. Thank you.
Mr. Steube. Thank you.
Ms. Scanlon. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for
five minutes.
Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you
to all our Witnesses for being here today. After sitting here
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, so 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, and also leave them
with their dignity. So, because of that, I made a decision a
long time ago that I would dedicate my life to public service,
that I wanted to protect people.
I ultimately decided that the best way for me 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, and
decisions. 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, life, religion, circumstances, belief, and 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. Imagine--and I'm speaking to all my
colleagues, if you are willing--the trauma associated with
these types of attacks and abuse, the darkness, hopelessness,
humiliation, and 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 shout we need less government. When it comes
to a woman's most intimate, private, personal decisions, a
woman's freedom, and doggone it her right to privacy, certainly
politicians want full, uninterrupted, unfiltered access to what
a woman does with her body.
There's been a lot of talk about the leaker. Well, perhaps
the leaker is a conservative who just happens to believe that
Roe 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 soar as we should to their full potential.
I trust them. I ask every Member of this body to get out their
personal business and trust them too.
Professor Goodwin, I want to ask you, why do you think
there is disagreement between State laws and reliable,
consistent polling, the overwhelming majority of the American
people believe that Roe should stay in place? There's some of
my colleagues that 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?
Ms. Goodwin. Well, because there is an agenda to dismantle
to the rule of law and our democracy as we know it, it's
important to realize that Roe v. Wade was a seven to two
opinion. Five of those justices were Republican appointed.
Justice Blackmun was put on the Court by Richard Nixon. What we
see today is antithetical to that history.
Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Professor. Madam Chair, I
yield back.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Massie for
five minutes.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Madam Chair. This hearing and the
context that's 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've
never been leaked.
Right now, what's happening here what the Democrats are
doing is to try and amplify that leak to try--it's a last ditch
effort to influence this decision. Ms. Foster, you mentioned in
your opening statement something that I think needs to be
explored more. I want to give you a chance to do that.
You talked about euphemisms. You didn't really get a chance
to discuss some of those euphemisms. I think I know what some
of them are. Can you tell us what the euphemistic language is
that the radical left uses to describe abortion and why they do
that?
Ms. Foster. Well, talking about the child in the womb,
unless you're President Biden, they use terms like clump of
tissue, 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
do, even when the vast majority of the American people. Anyone
who's seen an ultrasound can recognize that humanity.
Mr. Massie. 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 are cells
that replicate and divide. That's what a baby is doing inside
of the womb.
That, I would say, is life, when cells multiply on their
own without somebody causing that. The other euphemisms that
they use to describe the baby in the womb are fetus, pregnancy
tissue. This abortion will just quietly remove the pregnancy
they might say.
Ms. Foster. Products of conception.
Mr. Massie. Products of conception, medical waste, I mean,
you've already discussed that. They refer to unborn babies as
medical waste once they've been aborted. I find it interesting
the language they use to describe ending the life of an unborn
baby, abortion care. Who's being taken care of there?
Birth control, it's actually a consequence of the lack of
birth control. Reproductive freedom. These are all euphemisms
they use for describing the process of ending the life of an
unborn baby. 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 or it's an unplanned thing that's
happened. Now, they're trying to treat it like an emergency
when it should be the birth of a baby. Those who would
prematurely end the life of their baby are being called
patients.
My body, my choice. I remember when I was young and before
I learned how babies came about, I thought when they said my
body, my choice, they were talking about whatever was inside of
the woman was part of their body. The baby is not the body of
the woman 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?
Ms. Foster. Today's hearing has been replete with those
euphemisms and misdirections that I referenced in the opening
statement. Abortion is a scourge, plain and simple. It's a
farce that abortion is presented as a solution to anyone's
problems. It's a crime that corporate abortion interests and
this kind of euphemism and misdirection hold so much sway over
so many.
We have to do better than this because our constitutional
democracy is at stake. If abortion solved poverty or improved
material conditions, wouldn't we have closed the gap in the
last 50 years? Right now, inequality is greater than ever, and
wage growth is more stagnant than ever. So, please, with the
idea that abortion improves equality.
Mr. Massie. I think they're using these words to deceive
because if they actually described what they were doing, what
an abortion causes, that it ends a life, far fewer people would
choose that. So, I think they do it to deceive. I hold out hope
that the reason they use this language is some of the people in
the abortion industry still have a conscience, that they know
that it's wrong.
What they're doing is wrong. 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. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes myself for
five minutes. I want to thank Chair Nadler for calling this
hearing and our Witnesses who joined us today to sound the
alarm about the imminent restrictions on American reproductive
freedom. For my entire adult life, abortion has been recognized
as a legal form of healthcare 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 so decide with my
husband to have three wonderful children. I had the freedom to
make that decision on my own terms after I 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 the
temporary and permanent physical changes that entails and ready
to spend the next 30 years and counting nurturing those
children and putting their needs 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 recognized 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 whether and whom to marry, ourselves and with
those most concerned and close to us, whether a family, medical
providers, or faith leaders, free from government interference
and control.
We've heard from some of today's Witnesses how having that
choice or lacking that choice due to opportunity or resources
had a huge impact on their lives. I've 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 lack
thereof, to make reproductive decisions free from government
interference. The vast majority of Americans understand that
reproductive health decisions are complex and should be made by
a woman and those she's close to based on their individual
medical, emotional, financial, and other circumstances and that
the government does not belong in control of that decision.
We're at a point where the draft opinion in Dobbs v.
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 and particularly Mitch
McConnell have already exercised undue influence on the Supreme
Court's decision by packing the Court with far-right justices.
I would counter that the purpose of this hearing is exactly
as its title suggests, to examine the likely impact upon
American freedom to make reproductive healthcare 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 the Women's Health Protection Act
which would codify many of the rights enshrined in Roe v. Wade
and Casey.
The Senate needs to join us in protecting this essential
human right to privacy and liberty by passing that bill. If the
current Senate won't pass the bill, then the majority of
Americans who support having American's freedom to make
reproductive healthcare 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 rate of maternal
mortality, a healthcare 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 is exponentially worse for women of color. The
vast majority of such deaths are almost entirely preventable.
With abortion healthcare on the chopping block, I'm very
concerned about how maternal mortality across the country would
be affected. Dr. Robinson, could you address that question for
me?
Dr. Robinson. Yes. I've taken care of pregnant people for
more than 17 years. So, being a physician who cares for
pregnant people, I do understand that there are circumstances
where people do need access to the full gamut 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 mortality
rates.
This care is very important. I think that's the thing that
we need to focus on is giving these patients what they need so
that we can decrease that maternal and infant mortality rate,
like, making sure that they have access to care and not just
once they become pregnant. Then making sure that they can
continue that access to care beyond a short postpartum period.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much. I see that my time has
expired. At this time, I would recognize the gentleman from
Texas for five minutes.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair. Earlier, somebody was positing
what sets us apart as a country. I would suggest that it is
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the
constitutional framework that protects that.
Quick question for you, Ms. Foster. A lot has been made
about the implications with respect to race on the Roe opinion
and what may come down this summer. Would you agree that if you
look at the most recent data, 38 percent of abortions affect
Black babies?
Ms. Foster. Tragically, yes.
Mr. Roy. Twenty-one percent affect Hispanic babies?
Ms. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Roy. A lot of numbers have been raised about--or a lot
of questions and issues have been raised about rape and incest.
In fact, you had an exchange with my colleague from Maryland,
Mr. Raskin, about whether or not he would accept limits on
abortion if there was, in fact, an exception for rape and
incest. Could you clarify for the record, the Guttmacher
Institute is an arm of Planned Parenthood, correct?
Ms. Foster. Yes, founded as the research arm of Planned
Parenthood.
Mr. Roy. According to data that I have, less than one
percent of abortions are connected to rape, less than half
percent are connected to incest according to Guttmacher. Does
that line up with your understanding?
Ms. Foster. According to the Guttmacher Institute, ``data
suggests that most women seeking later terminations are not
doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.''
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 a parent which are all
issues where we as a caring nation and as loving communities
can come alongside the woman.
Mr. Roy. So, I think it merits conversation again to your
point, yes or no, do you believe that your answer was--the
answer from Mr. Raskin, would it be a yes or a no? It would be
no, correct?
Ms. Foster. It would be no.
Mr. Roy. You would not accept limits on abortion. Even if
you exempted the one, 1\1/2\ percent that falls in that
category. Ms. Arrambide, really quick, you made a couple of
points I think during your testimony about Texas not being a
particularly hospitable place generally or with respect to
women as it relates to abortion and made a point about lack of
care provided for women.
Is it correct--I have information I believe that says that
there are 8\1/2\ pro-pregnancy and pregnancy counseling centers
for every one abortion clinic in the State of Texas. The
legislature in passing S.B. 8 appropriated 100 million dollars
for women's healthcare. I guess my question here 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
moved to the State of Texas in the last decade? Do you know
what that number is?
Ms. Arrambide. I don't know.
Mr. Roy. Yeah, four million people have moved to the State
of Texas in the last decade.
Ms. Arrambide. I will say that the clinics that you're
referring to are free clinics and they don't actually--
Mr. Roy. 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 move to one other question here. Ms. Robinson--
Ms. Arrambide. Could I finish my answer, though, about
Texas--
Mr. Roy. 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 unborn
child?
Dr. Robinson. Yes, my name is Dr. Robinson, and I provide
abortion care in Alabama. So, Alabama has a--
Mr. Roy. What is the answer to the question, the latest
that you have performed an abortion?
Dr. Robinson. I'm going to answer your question. So,
unfortunately--
Mr. Roy. It's a number, weeks.
Dr. Robinson. --my State is one of those States that has
passed restrictions or bans on abortion care which limits
physicians like myself--
Mr. Roy. Therefore, in other words, you'd like to do it
later. What is the latest you performed an abortion?
Dr. Robinson. So, since I will always follow the law and I
live in the State of Alabama, I provide abortion care up until
20 weeks gestational age.
Mr. Roy. Okay. So, you performed an abortion at 20 weeks.
Dr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roy. The procedure for an abortion when we're talking
about at 20 weeks, as I understand it, is dilation and
extraction. Have you performed abortions at that stage? In
doing so, have you had baby parts that you've had to discard or
store in some capacity?
Dr. Robinson. One of the things that you all have done--
Mr. Roy. Legs, arms, eyes?
Dr. Robinson. --throughout this hearing is just use
inflammatory language--
Mr. Roy. No, it's a question. Ma'am--it's a simple
question.
Dr. Robinson. --as you talk about the care that we provide.
Mr. Roy. Have you had human parts, baby parts, arms, legs,
as a result of an abortion performed at the time you just
acknowledged--
Dr. Robinson. I am a physician--
Mr. Roy. --you performed abortions up to 20 weeks.
Dr. Robinson. --and a proud abortion provider. There is
nothing that you can say--
Mr. Roy. Yes or no--
Dr. Robinson. --that makes it difficult--for me to talk
about the care that I provide to patients.
Mr. Roy. Ma'am, so, have there been baby parts, yes or not?
Dr. Robinson. If you will like for me to talk to you about
how we perform an abortion for patients who need care--
Mr. Roy. Where and how have they been stored? So, the
answer to the question is fairly obvious.
Dr. Robinson. --at 20 weeks gestational age, I'm happy--
Mr. Roy. There are baby parts, and you don't want to talk
about how they're being stored. You don't want to talk about
putting them in freezers. You don't want to talk about putting
them in Pyrex dishes. You don't want to talk about the videos
that we have from Planned Parenthood at Gulf Coast in Houston,
Texas. You don't want to talk about the reality of what
actually happens.
Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Roy. I yield back.
Dr. Robinson. If you don't mind me answering, all those
things that you just mentioned, I have never seen that in a
healthcare setting ever. We don't put baby parts in freezers or
Pyrex dishes. I've never seen a patient--
Mr. Roy. Well, I asked where you put them. Well, then where
do they go?
Ms. Scanlon. Gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Robinson. Thank you.
Ms. Scanlon. The Chair recognizes Ms. McBath for five
minutes.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you so
much to Chair Nadler. Thank you so much to our Witnesses today.
We really appreciate you being here under such duress.
Like so many women in America, for years I struggled to get
pregnant. My husband and I, we tried everything that we could
do to start a family of our own. Finally, we were successful.
I had never been so happy. I prayed for this moment for so
many years. I wanted to tell everyone. I just wanted to shout
it from all the mountaintops. For weeks I began to dream about
our life and our future together.
Then one day I woke up covered in blood. It is hard to
describe the agony of a miscarriage. It is heartbreak, it is
helplessness, it is pain, and it is profound sadness. Millions
of women suffer from them. I have heard from many who felt
guilty, like I did, who felt as though that we weren't worthy
of having a child.
Those are the same feelings that cut through my mind. Every
time I have had these difficult discussions with other women, I
remind them that they are strong, and that they are powerful
beyond measure, and that their 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 because I believed
that God was giving me and my husband, finally, he had a plan
for us to be parents.
After four months, while feeling terror and trauma in my
heart, I was rushed to the emergency room. There, with 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 sorrow, and guilt. 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 dead fetus and waited for
me to go into labor. For two weeks people passed 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 is uniquely my story. Yet, it is not
so unique. Millions of women in America, women in this room,
women at your homes, the women you love and cherish have
suffered a miscarriage.
So, I ask on behalf of these women, after which failed
pregnancy should I have been imprisoned? Would it 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
pregnancy.
Or would you have put me behind bars after my stillbirth,
after I was forced to carry a dead fetus for weeks after asking
God if I was ever going to be able to raise a child?
I ask, because the same medicine used to treat my failed
pregnancies is the same medicine States like Texas would make
illegal.
I ask, because if Alabama makes abortion murder, does it
make miscarriage manslaughter?
I ask, 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 country whose lives you may 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 healthcare is healthcare.
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.
Chair Nadler. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Scanlon said a few minutes ago that this hearing is
called because of an imminent peril to the right of abortion.
Professor Goodwin, I guess you are the only Witness
presented by the majority as having expertise in the law. Do
you unequivocally condemn the leak of the draft opinion?
Ms. Goodwin. It is absolutely unprecedented that there is a
leak. It is a story; it is not the story of these hearings.
That is unprecedented.
Mr. Bishop. No, I didn't--I am aware it is unprecedented.
So, that is factual. Many people have covered that.
I am interested as a matter of your expertise; do you
condemn it? Was it wrong to leak the opinion?
Ms. Goodwin. I believe that, I believe that the justices
need to be able to deliberate privately. I think that leaks
such as this make that difficult.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said
that you use she/her pronouns. You are a medical doctor. What
is a woman?
Dr. Robinson. It is important for you to understand why I
said, ``I use she/her pronouns.'' It is because I understand
that--
Mr. Bishop. Well, I am explaining. I was explaining why I
am asking the question. I just thought you can answer the
question.
What is a woman?
Dr. Robinson. I think it is important that we educate
people like you about why we are doing the things that we do.
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.
I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call
them in such a way as they desire not to be called.
Mr. Bishop. Thanks for that explanation.
Dr. Robinson. So, it is important that we respect each
individual person--
Mr. Bishop. Are you going to answer my question? Can you
answer the question; what is a woman?
Dr. Robinson. I am a woman.
I will ask you, which pronouns do you use?
Mr. Bishop. Can you provide--
Dr. Robinson. If you tell me that you use she and her
pronouns,--
Mr. Bishop. Is that--
Dr. Robinson. --I am going to answer you, I am going to
call you Mr. Bishop. I am going to respect you for how you want
me to address you.
Mr. Bishop. I am just asking, so you have given 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?
Dr. Robinson. Yes. I am telling you; I am a woman.
Mr. Bishop. Is that as comprehensive a definition as you
can give me?
Dr. Robinson. That is as comprehensive of a definition as I
will give you today.
Mr. Bishop. I see.
Dr. Robinson. Because I think it is important that we focus
on what we are here for. It is to talk about access to abortion
care and how important this right is.
Mr. Bishop. I see. So, you are not interested in answering
the question I asked unless, in answering the question that I
asked unless it is part of a message you want to deliver. Is
that right?
Dr. Robinson. I am sorry. Because I was talking, and you
were talking at the same time.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, ma'am. I am, right, it is my, it is my
time.
Dr. Robinson. Okay. I just--
Mr. Bishop. It is my time to ask you questions. That is the
purpose of this. I ask you to uncover things by asking you
questions and asking you to respond.
So, you are not willing to answer a question unless it is
part of the message you wish to deliver. Is that correct?
Dr. Robinson. So, what I was trying to explain to you is
that I had a difficult time hearing you since we were talking
at the same time.
Mr. Bishop. Let me just see if I can go to Ms. Arrambide.
Is that a pretty close approximation of the pronunciation?
Ms. Arrambide. Arrambide.
Mr. Bishop. Arrambide. Okay.
What do you say a woman is?
Ms. Arrambide. I believe that anyone can identify for
themselves.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Do you believe then that men can become
pregnant and have abortions?
Ms. Arrambide. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Professor Goodwin, the draft opinion says this,
in part:
The Court has no authority to decree that an erroneous
precedent is permanently exempt from evaluation under
traditional stare decisis principles. Adherence to precedent is
the norm, but not an inexorable command. If the rule were,
otherwise, erroneous decisions like Plessy and Lochner would
still be the law.
Professor, isn't that inarguably true? Mustn't it be the case
that all prior decisions of the Court are subject to
reevaluation?
Ms. Goodwin. Oh, it is certainly the case that we have in
the legacy of this Court: Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown
v. Board of Education. So, the ability to be able to review is
important. That is the ability to be able to review.
It is another thing when the Supreme Court then strips away
a fundamental protection that has been made, particularly given
that the justices who may be involved in this leaked draft
opinion suggested that they actually respected the precedent
and stare decisis associated with Roe. They were not talking
about Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott when they said that they
respected that stare decisis.
Mr. Bishop. Well, those are examples. So, Roe and Casey
would be equally susceptible to reevaluation as Plessy. Would
you agree?
Ms. Goodwin. Well, and in fact, they certainly could be and
be further expanded. They have been.
So, one of the things we haven't talked about is that there
is Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, and even just a couple
years ago, June Medical v. Russo, which this Supreme Court used
to further uphold the principles of Roe v. Wade and also
Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Mr. Bishop. I yield back. My time has expired.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank our Witnesses. It has been really
challenging to listen to my Republican colleagues essentially
minimize and, in fact, completely ignore how difficult
decisions like this are for women all over the country.
It is even more difficult to listen to them Act as though
they know better for women what women--how women should plan
their future. The fact that they believe they should be the
ones to stand between a woman and her doctor.
It is shocking to me how backward this thinking is, and the
dark 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, a 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 crib. They prepared
the room. They were fortunate. She was in a stable marriage, in
a stable family. They had means to provide for their baby. So,
they were making plans for this baby.
In her final trimester she heard the horrific news that her
baby was not viable. Then she learned that if she carried the
baby to term, she would likely die, leaving her kids
motherless, leaving her husband without a partner, without a
wife.
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.
The very same people here who are of the belief that they
should tell women how to live their lives and usurp the
authority of a physician, it was those types of people standing
outside that clinic who were jeering and taunting this mourning
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.
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 birth won't be happening.
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.
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 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 schoolchildren, 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
family separation.
So, let's remember who the people in Congress are who
support families and who value mothers and babies.
If we want to reduce abortion, then we would provide free
contraception and widely-accepted sex education. They 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
would like to correct the record on?
Dr. Robinson. Yes. One of the things I did want to say was
there 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. We should respect that. For those people who feel like
life begins at conception, I welcome them to never have an
abortion ever in their life. We should respect that.
I also feel that they should respect the decision of people
who do decide that an abortion is what is right for them and
for their families.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
Dr. Robinson. I am so sorry about the situation with the
person you spoke about who had to go to an abortion clinic and
face the harassment and the jeering as she went in and mourn
her child. My patients face that on a daily basis, because she
cannot get that care in the hospital, even when there is a
complicated pregnancy. So, this is the reality for many of our
patients.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Dr. Robinson.
To the American people watching at home, remember they are
coming for you, too.
I yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Owens.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Last week, at a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Treasury
Secretary Janet Yellen testified that restricting abortions
would have a very damaging effect on the economy. As she took
the position of representing teenagers, low-income women, and
minorities, Secretary Yellen argued that ending the life of an
unborn child is a good thing for the labor force participation
rate.
Since I am very aware of the founder of Parent Parenthood--
Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, I find the parroting of
her manifesto by Secretary Yellen, the devaluation of life of
an unborn, poor Black and minority children as very concerning.
I have also been aware of Sanger's 1946 book, The Negro
Project, in which she shared her vision of poor Blacks and
other minorities. I quote, ``The gradual suppression,
elimination, and eventual extinction of a defective stock,
those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest
flowers of American civilization.'' She was a favorite, by the
way, of the White supremacist, KKK speaking circuit. When she
set up her first abortion shop, it was in Black Harlem in 1921.
These are words of a rabid racist founder of Planned
Parenthood. That's a multibillion-dollar global abortion
cartel, and been responsible for the deaths--and that is going
to be her legacy--the deaths of tens of millions of Black
babies and other children.
Thank goodness for Senator Tim Scott upon hearing the
statement by Secretary Yellen calling it out for what it was:
Biased, callous, and calculated. I agree with my friend Senator
Scott who learned from his single mother that there is dignity
in all work, and dignity in all life.
In an op ed published in yesterday's Washington Post,
Senator Scott wrote:
We live in a world where words are too often disconnected from
the lived experiences of many Americans. Yellen's cold and
robotic reference to the issue of life is just the latest
example of that.
Secretary Yellen's comments is also deeply offensive to me. For
years, the Black community has been disproportionately targeted
by the abortionist industry. I have watched it happen. We lost
over 20 million Black babies over the last 40 years. That is 40
percent of my race exterminated before given a chance to bless
our nation with their innate talents.
Based on her conclusion, their demise is a good thing for
our labor force participation rates. Secretary Yellen has
obviously concluded that these 20 million Black lives would
have been an economic drain on our society.
A 2017 report by the Life Issues Institute found that 88
percent of Planned Parenthood megacenters targeted women of
color, with 80 percent specifically targeting Black
communities, and 56 percent targeting Hispanic and Latino
communities. For those who love the concept of equity, and
everything under the sun, including test score outcomes, when
it comes to the death of the unborn, the abortion equity seems
to be pretty racist to me.
Abortion is not healthcare. Healthcare doesn't result in
the intentional death of over 60 million human beings. It
undermines the dignity and worth of every individual and their
God-given right to life.
If a woman feels that abortion is her only and best option,
I believe that woman has been failed by her family, her
partner, her community, and her healthcare providers.
I am the father of six children and 16 grandchildren. Our
pride comes from the joy of watching them grow and start a
family of their own, even if their circumstances aren't perfect
or, as Ms. Yellen would have us believe, an economic burden.
Now, two of my beautiful, loving, talented children were
born after my NFL career, after I lost everything due to a
failed business, and after a brief job stint as a chimney sweep
and a security guard. Thank goodness I was raised by a
generation of proud Black Americans who taught me that in
America our financial status does not define us. It can be
temporary.
Our children and family relationships, on the other hand,
are not only eternal but an invaluable treasure during our
brief time on this earth. They are the only legacy at the end
of our lives that really matter. Our children are the most
precious gifts and blessings from a loving God. The fight to
defend life has never been more important, the fight to defend
the founding ideals of our nation that all people are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness has never been more important.
I ask for unanimous consent to place Senator Scott's
Washington Times op ed titled, ``Tim Scott: Abortion is not the
way to help single Black mothers,'' in the record.
[The information follows:]
MR. OWENS FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Owens. With the last few seconds I have, Ms. Foster, do
you have any comments that you would like to add to the record?
Ms. Foster. That brought me to tears. Amen to everything
you just said.
I would just say when it comes to helping mothers in
difficult situations and living in poverty, go ask Planned
Parenthood if they provide diapers, formula, a crib, rent
assistance, food, bill assistance, counseling, mammograms,
continuing education, you know. Then compare that to what
pregnancy care centers offer. Then come tell me that pro-lifers
are the ones that don't care for children after they are born.
Give me a break.
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
The legacy of Sanger will be for death. That is what she
will be known for.
Thank you so much for that.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous
consent request.
Chair Nadler. Wait one second.
The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman is recognized for a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. Just to enter into the
record a letter that we received today from the American
Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Chair Nadler. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA
FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
Chair Nadler. Mr. Stanton.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Like most of my colleagues, I was shocked to learn the news
that a draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health had
leaked from the Supreme Court. As I read that opinion, my shock
turned to disbelief. My disbelief turned to outrage.
It has been nearly 50 years since the Court decided Roe v.
Wade. In that half century, the American people have recognized
the constitutional right to an abortion, the constitutional
right to make an informed 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 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 forcing 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's child. That is what is at stake.
If Roe is overturned, as we expect it will be, that will be the
future for women in many States, including my State, 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-Roe 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 abortion.
In my State, which is evenly split among party lines, more
than 70 percent of voters oppose making abortion illegal. So,
that might explain why up to this point my Republican
colleagues have been more concerned with the leak itself than
what 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. 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.
Now, today we have heard so many misstatements and attacks
on our esteemed panel of Witnesses, so I did want to give the
remainder of my time, offer it to either Dr. Robinson or
Professor Goodwin to correct the record and respond to any of
the comments that have been made here today.
Professor?
Ms. Goodwin. I will start.
Mr. Stanton. Please.
Ms. Goodwin. Yes.
Well, in the comments today there has been the suggestion
that other rights such as right to contraception would not be
rolled back. Here is what I want to share.
Speaking on CNN on Sunday, May 8th, Mississippi Governor
Tate Reeves refused to rule out attempting to ban some forms of
contraception if the Court overrules Roe v. Wade.
In Idaho, in an interview on May 6th with the Idaho Public
Television, Republican State Representative Brent Crane said he
would hold hearings on legislation banning emergency
contraception and abortion pills.
Equally, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed into law
additional restrictions on dispensing of abortion pills,
including that medication abortion be provided by qualified
physicians.
We have also seen in the last week or so States like
Louisiana seeking to criminalize and punish abortion as
homicide, and to allow prosecutors to criminally charge
patients.
That is just the beginning. I could go through a list even
deeper and longer than that.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much.
Dr. Robinson, do you have anything to add?
Dr. Robinson. Yes. I just wanted the opportunity just to
clear up the record.
There has been lots of mention like, or it has been
suggested that women or pregnant people are callously making
the decision to just terminate their 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
that they are very thoughtful in this decision.
As we have said, many abortions do take place in the first
trimester. However, abortion care needs to be accessible as a
pregnancy progresses. Sometimes that may be later in the
pregnancy.
I know that it is hard for people to imagine those
circumstances where a person may have to choose to end a
pregnancy later in gestation. That is why we should leave that
to the professionals, to the medical doctors, and to the
patient.
Then, also to suggest that we need to put restrictions in
place or to keep passing bans, as if we would perform an
abortion without obtaining consent. That is part of what we do
as medical professionals. There is no other procedure, not even
removing a toenail, that we do without obtaining proper,
informed consent. There is informed decision making that goes
into the care that we provide. That is taking place without
representatives having to keep passing bills and putting these
things in place.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have one more
unanimous consent. I apologize.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman is recognized for one more
unanimous consent request, until the next one.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
This is a letter to the Members of the House Committee on
the Judiciary from Students for Life Action. I move it into the
record of the hearing.
Chair Nadler. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA
FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Nadler. Mr. Tiffany.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
This is terrific that, in many ways, that we are having
this hearing because 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, where they are going
to understand, I believe, better what is all happening behind
this issue.
I have heard the incendiary rhetoric at times that
abortions are all going to be outlawed, they are coming for
you, and various things like this.
I would share with you in the Wisconsin State Senate that I
served in for nearly 10 years, that 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 is evenly split. Well, we are the definition of an
evenly split State in Wisconsin, and we came to seven years ago
that we should be at 20 weeks.
The most important thing is that the representatives of the
people of the State of Wisconsin were debating it.
So, since Roe v. Wade has happened here is what we have
learned.
Chair Nadler. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Tiffany. As long as you don't take any of my five
minutes.
Chair Nadler. It won't take me.
Mr. Tiffany. Yeah, go ahead.
Chair Nadler. I have been very loose with the gavel, as you
may have noticed.
This is the United States of America. Why should the rights
of a citizen depend on which State they live in? That is my
question.
Mr. Tiffany. The rights of the people of the United States
should be carried--those rights should be, first, they are
imbued by our creator at the founding. Then it is up to the
will of the people. That is what Roe circumvented. That
circumvented the will of the people.
It was judge-made law, not law of the people of our
country.
So, anyhow, if I may continue.
Since Roe v. Wade, here is what we have learned. Look at
these billboards that you see all across the country. At six
weeks, the child has a heartbeat. They have a heartbeat in that
womb. Fifteen 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 is something we didn't
know. The medical technology in the last 50 years is incredible
what has happened that has shown us the humanity of that baby
that is in the mother's womb.
So, so much has changed. That is why, that is part of the
reason why, I think you have seen justices come, what appears
to be that they are 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 Chair and others on
this Committee will say we cannot have this happen here in
America.
If you could please play some audio.
What we are waiting for is audio of a message that was left
at the Wisconsin Family Action Offices at Madison that, as you
can see in the picture behind me, was fire-bombed shortly after
the release, release of the opinion.
[Audio available at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/
0zjcb8cvvun14ei9t4fyz/2022.05.18-Tiffany-Mostly-
peaceful.pptx?dl=0&rlkey=52o59zt80gy7p30gox9cn0xa6]
Mr. Tiffany. I am sorry for the language that is contained
in that. There were multiple messages sent in the same vein to
the Wisconsin Family Action, an advocacy group that just
advocates for life.
This is what happened 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 intimidate them. I hope the Attorney General
protects Wisconsin Family Action as, as I hope no more groups,
but 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 in
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 Council like he
treated parents before school boards here in the United States.
Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Tiffany. I will yield. I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Garcia.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your
leadership in convening this, what arguably 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
healthcare. 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 were taught, as Jesus did, to treat those
going through uneasy times with kindness and compassion.
Freedom has no gender. It is not wrapped in pink and baby
blue. Freedom is for all. Government has no place in imposing
itself on a woman's freedom in making her own private personal
decision when it comes to her pregnancy.
Abortion is healthcare. Abortion is a human right, period.
The public agrees. Recent Gallup poll found 80 percent of
Americans believe that abortions should be safe and legal.
Washington Post similarly found 75 percent support protecting
Roe.
In my own district we did a text survey of over 40,000
people. Keep in mind, Mr. Chair, my district is 77 percent
Latino. Forty percent--40 thousand on our text survey, 76
percent said they favored having women's rights to have a safe,
legal abortion.
The justices may ignore settled law, lawmakers may ignore
the public, but true justice and freedom means ensuring
abortion care is safe, available, and affordable for all.
I would 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 Lizelle Herrera case in South Texas?
Lizelle Herrera, she was a young woman whose self-induced
abortion, she had some problems, went to a hospital. The
hospital reported her. The D.A. charged her with murder. She
had to stay two days in jail till she was bonded on a half
million-dollar bond.
Dr. Robinson. I am not familiar with the details of that.
Ms. Garcia. Well, I bring it up because if we go, if we get
rid of Roe v. Wade, which is what the goal is for the
Republican Party and the extreme Supreme Court justices, and 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, within 30 days 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
healthcare?
Dr. Robinson. I think it is quite devastating. I think it
is going to be harmful to patients.
If the real goal is to protect women, this is doing exactly
the opposite. It puts physicians in a situation where they are
not looking out for the best interests of their patients. They
are having to take their own interests, their own freedom into
consideration. So, it is going to harm, it is going to harm
people.
Ms. Garcia. It is.
Do you think it will have a chilling effect on some people,
some doctors and providers, hospital workers who won't even
want to provide some of the care, even in terms of emergencies?
Dr. Robinson. Oh, absolutely. I am already seeing that, and
we are not post-Roe yet.
I have had a patient--
Ms. Garcia. Well, unfortunately, we are in Texas, as the
other Witnesses pointed out, so.
Dr. Robinson. You are right. That is, that is very
unfortunate.
Even in Alabama we are not there yet, and we have had
patients that have come in who got medication that was legal
for care that they needed, and their physician was unwilling to
see them following taking that medication. They were afraid
that they would be breaking the law.
That is going to happen time and time again.
Ms. Garcia. To quickly switch to the professor.
Professor, you heard our governor suggest that what we need
to look at now 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, country, that all children
must be educated regardless of their immigration status.
Here we have a White supremacist in Tennessee saying, well,
if we can overturn Roe, let's overturn Brown v. Board of
Education. Is that where we are going? What is next?
Ms. Goodwin. What is next is that the State legislators are
saying, what you have just said is what will be debated on
those State legislatures and may become law.
Ms. Garcia. That is most unfortunate, Mr. Chair. There is
so much more I could say.
I will be submitting additional questions for the record.
With that, I yield back. I think my time has expired.
Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Bentz.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to begin by thanking the Witnesses for participating
in such a challenging hearing.
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 is also an opportunity for all of us to ask the American
people to avoid violence, and on either side, and to let the
process work.
This hearing today, although I wish we weren't having it
based upon a leaked memo, is evidence of the process working.
Now, sometimes it works slowly. It has taken 50 years for this
issue to come before the Court. The process, though, does work.
The Committee has engaged in a lot of discussion about we
Republicans being pro-life, it is only natural that we
Republicans should take this opportunity to call out exactly
where the Democrats stand on the issue. I think the best means
of doing that is by drawing attention to the Women's Health
Protection Act.
Ms. Foster, Bill Manchin said that his party's bill is not
Roe v. Wade codification but, instead, a dramatic expansion of
Roe v. Wade. Could you comment?
Ms. Foster. That is correct. In the very same sentence
where he said that he would support codification, he said that
he could not support the Women's Health Protection Act, so-
called, because it would so dramatically expand Roe v. Wade and
the regime of legalized abortion that we have had in our
nation. It would wipe out more than 500 laws protecting women
and children.
Mr. Bentz. It would, would it not, federalize the abortion
issue, taking it away from the States and imposing, if you
will, the right to abortion from the time of conception until
the time of birth. Is that correct?
Ms. Foster. Absolutely. Sure would.
Mr. Bentz. So, there were some that suggested, even on your
panel, that partial birth abortion, infanticide, just, just
doesn't happen. Indeed, under that Act it would be allowed. Am
I right?
Ms. Foster. It would.
Mr. Bentz. Can you go into more detail?
Ms. Foster. Under this, under this act, under this
potential law, partial birth abortion would be on the table,
pretty much anything else that you can think of that we have
worked for 49 years to protect in the days since Roe.
We have had to enact all these hundreds of separate laws to
protect women and children after Roe wiped all the abortion
laws off the books in all 50 States, going beyond what any
State had on the books at that time.
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
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 is what is taking us backward.
Mr. Bentz. Let's make sure the record is clear. We are
talking about the Women's Health Protection Act?
Ms. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Bentz. 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, is still
allowed. Is that correct?
Ms. Foster. It would still be allowed, yes.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chair, thank you for holding this very
urgent hearing today. To all our Witnesses, thank you for your
testimony, your very powerful, moving testimony.
A lot has been said today. I have 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. It would
not be happening if the roles were reversed.
Can you imagine trying to regulate the healthcare 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. So, the idea that we would have this concentrated effort
to legislate a ban on the ability to women to simply make
decisions about their own healthcase is absurd on its face. It
is, obviously, going back in time to a place where I had hoped
that we had gotten past. It is something that is hypocritical
because the opposite would never be allowed to take place if
the shoe was on the other foot.
Mr. Owens is a nice guy. Also, made some outlandish
comments earlier. He leveraged the fact that he was Black to
validate those comments, which was a bit disturbing for me, who
is 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 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 healthcare for tens of millions more people in this
country than who had it prior to the Democratic Congress'
enactment of that legislation under Barack Obama.
So, I think it is important to clarify the record when it
comes to these issues.
Professor Goodwin, 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 even blamed 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.''
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 is so wrong for Republicans to
blame women for the GOP's own war on abortion rights in light
of their war on the voting rights of people of color?
Thank you.
Ms. Goodwin. That is right.
Well, thank you so much for that question. In fact, they
should not blame women. They should not be blaming women in
Mississippi who, if they are Black, risk 118 times more likely
to die by carrying a pregnancy to term than by having an
abortion; a State in which 80 percent of the cardiac deaths in
that State during pregnancy happen to be Black women; a State
that historically has disenfranchised Black people, first
through enslavement and forced reproduction of Black women; and
that 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 its might to
continue to suppress the right of Black people to vote.
Fannie Lou Hamer famously talked about being beaten after
she attempted to vote, where in the best-case scenarios Black
people had to guess how many bubbles on a bar of soap and
jellybeans in a jar to be able to vote.
This is why this is not just Jim Crow, this is the new Jane
Crow. It fails to pay any attention to the lives, historically
or in the present, of Black women. That is the part of this
that is absolutely shameful.
Mr. Jones. Thank you for that.
The nation that my Republican colleagues want is
terrifying. A handful of unelected, unaccountable, far-right
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, to my Republican colleagues this is what
democracy looks like. I would submit that the American people
know better. That is not democracy; that is servitude.
I yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the
Witnesses today.
Over the past year-and-a-half we have watched President
Biden and the Democrats continually push an anti-life agenda.
First, they gutted the Hyde Amendment, longstanding provision
of appropriations bills that prevents taxpayer funding for
abortions, and that saved an estimated two million lives.
Then the Biden Administration's Department of Health and
Human Services changed their rules to essentially require
healthcare providers to perform abortions, despite any moral
objections they may have.
They have prevented the House from voting on commonsense
pieces of legislation, such as Born Alive Abortion Survivors
Protection Act. This bill would ensure that babies who survive
abortions are provided with medical care.
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
``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, of which my colleague Mr. Tiffany
spoke about earlier. We need to make sure that we prevent
similar attacks in the future.
Rather than focusing on diffusing 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. 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 leaked Supreme Court opinion ends up being the final
product and overturns 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 passed hundreds of
bills, pro-life bills, at the State level.
Elected officials, rather than unelected judges, will set
abortion policy based on where consensus is found. Babies in
the womb deserve legal protection and possess the basic human
right to life. Unborn children at six weeks have a heartbeat,
and by 15 weeks can feel pain, and have human features such as
nose, lips, 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. Abortions carried out
following these horrific crimes only compound the crisis that
the mother has endured. Abortion advances a cycle of violence
forward on yet another innocent 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.
Ms. 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?
Ms. Foster. Absolutely.
As of July 2021, we at Americans United For Life have
compiled more than 38 pages of scholarly criticism of Roe from
the left and the right, explaining just how un-moored in the
Constitution Roe and Casey are.
We do hope that Dobbs will be the case that Casey wasn't,
that it will correct the errors of not finding a right to life
in the Constitution, of course, but also finding this purported
right to abortion that in the decades since even the Court
hasn't been able to quite get grasp of, Right?
As it changed the test in the framework from Roe to Casey,
and then even in the last few years with Hellerstedt and June
Medical, the undue burden standard has been, has been up in the
air as it has gotten pushed back and forth in the court.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Lieu.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chair Nadler.
I listened carefully to the stories of the Witnesses today.
Thank you for your time and effort presenting.
I heard Ms. Arrambide, and Dr. Robinson, and Ms. Foster,
your experiences. They are all different. That is a point,
isn't it? All women have different experiences.
Two of you gave different testimony. Because Dr. Robinson
and Ms. Arrambide, you didn't 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, and
to her doctor.
MAGA Republicans want to criminalize abortion. They want to
take that decision away from 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 who wants to help a woman to get an abortion in
Texas can be sued by their neighbor. This is a radical agenda.
Really, the question today is not, well, I don't know, when
does life begin? It is who makes that decision? Do you want
MAGA politicians making that decision, or do you want the woman
to make that decision in consultation with her faith, her
doctor, and her family?
At conception, 12 hours later it is still a single cell. Is
that a human being? Is that a person? Thirty hours later it
splits into two cells. Is that a human being? Is that a person?
Fourty-five hours later it splits into four cells.
Now, some women will decide that is a person and carry the
pregnancy to term. Some will not. That should be the decision
of the woman with her faith, family, and doctor, not for MAGA
politicians.
That is really the issue here: Whose decision is this? Is
it government or is it the woman's decision in consultation
with her doctor, faith, and God?
I submit that it is the woman's decision because that is
what the American public overwhelmingly believes. Only 28
percent support overturning Roe v. Wade.
I would like to now turn to the legal issues in Roe v.
Wade, specifically legal issues that one of the Supreme Court
justices in their confirmation hearings misled the American
public.
If you look at the draft opinion, the draft opinion says
Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.
So, Professor Goodwin, my question to you, are the five
conservative Supreme Court justices that purportedly sign on to
this draft opinion, did any of them say Roe was egregiously
wrong from the start in their confirmation hearing?
Ms. Goodwin. No, they did not.
Mr. Lieu. In fact, what did Justice Alito say? That is what
he said, Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme
Court. That is what he said.
Do you remember Justice Gorsuch, Professor Goodwin, saying
that Roe was egregiously wrong from the start?
Ms. Goodwin. No.
Mr. Lieu. No.
Ms. Goodwin. I do not. They did not, he did not say that.
Mr. Lieu. In fact, this is actually what Justice Gorsuch
said in his confirmation hearing under oath. He said,
I will tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a
precedent of the United States Supreme Court. A good judge will
consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court,
worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.
Professor Goodwin, do you remember Brett Kavanaugh saying
Roe was egregiously wrong from the start?
Ms. Goodwin. No. He did not.
Mr. Lieu. In fact, this is what Brett Kavanaugh said under
oath to the American people and to the U.S. Senate. He said,
It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled to
respect under principles of stare decisis. The Supreme Court
has recognized the right to abortion since the 1970 Roe v. Wade
case. It has reaffirmed it many times.
Multiple conservative Supreme Court justices misled the
American people to get power, to get confirmed. Now, you are
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.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Neguse?
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing
today.
As we near the conclusion of this hearing, I think it would
be helpful to try to recenter the conversation on what I
believe is the fundamental issue that we are discussing today,
which is really freedom--the freedom for a woman to make her
own healthcare decisions. That freedom is really at the core
issue of what we are discussing today.
My friends on the other side of the aisle like to say that
there is too much government regulation when it comes to public
health measures, and yet, apparently, would like to regulate
intimate decisions like pregnancy and deprive women of the
freedom to make their own healthcare decisions--as my
colleague, Representative Stanton said, the constitutional
right to make an informed medical decision. Unfortunately, many
Republicans have made it quite clear that, when it comes to
health and medical decisions, their beliefs matter more than
the families that they claim to represent.
I don't want to repeat much of what--this is a long
hearing, of course, and a robust debate. I thank all the
Witnesses for their testimony today. I don't want to
necessarily repeat the comments of my colleagues.
Perhaps Mr. Johnson will engage me in a brief colloquy, as
he hasn't had an opportunity to talk in quite some time.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
Mr. Neguse. I guess the question I have, my understanding--
and obviously, the leaked opinion is not--we don't know whether
or not that is a 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.
Is that--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is right. That was the case
before Roe and before 1973, that is right.
Mr. Neguse. Given that, would you be supportive of a
Federal abortion ban?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. There is no right to abortion in
the Constitution. It is not in the text, the structure, or the
original meaning, intent, as the draft opinion points out very
well. So, when a right, as you well know, when a right is not
included in the Constitution, the decision, the question falls
to the people. So, they should make that decision at the
closest level possible, through their elected representatives.
The States have that ability and did so before Roe, and that is
where it will happen again.
Mr. Neguse. Well, I guess, what does that mean? Does that
mean yes or no on the Federal abortion ban?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, there will be a lot of
discussion about that, but no one has drawn that conclusion. I
think, like in my State, in Louisiana, when Roe is overturned,
we become a 100 percent pro-life State because we did the heavy
work when I was in the legislature there, put it in the State
statutes. We have a trigger clause. We admitted our
constitution in 2020. So, my State and I think 18 others will
have that decision resolved, and then, there will be a very
robust debate in the other States. We will see what happens.
Mr. Neguse. I appreciate your answer. I would say, while I
appreciate your articulation of Louisiana's construction of
their abortion regulations, your colleagues, many of your
colleagues on your side of the aisle have been much more
forward in acknowledging that they would like to see a Federal
abortion ban.
Maybe Dr. Robinson can help me on this point. Because I
think part of what is obfuscated much of this debate is this
discussion that the potential Dobbs decision would,
essentially, leave this matter to the States, which obscures
the reality that many Republicans, including Senator McConnell,
Leader McConnell in the Senate, have left the door open to a
potential Federal ban on abortion.
I guess, Dr. Robinson, maybe you can expound a bit about
what that would mean for States like Colorado. As you may be
aware, I represent the State of Colorado. In Colorado, we have
codified via State statute the right, the freedom to be able to
make these healthcare decisions, as well as within the State
constitution.
It seems pretty clear to me--I would 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
leaving to the States.
Dr. Robinson. From all the legislation that has been passed
over the last several years since I became a provider, it looks
like it is very clear that the direction that they are trying
to lead us in is for there to be no access to abortion care.
I am not a legal scholar. So, as legislation passes, we
have to constantly rely on attorneys who can give us guidance
about how we can continue to care for patients. So, my
understanding is that the States that have protections in place
for abortion care, then they will be overwhelmed with patients
who are able to leave their communities to access care. In a
State like my own in Alabama, then people will no longer have
access to that care.
Mr. Neguse. I think that is correct. Of course, also, if,
in fact, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who
believe that a Federal abortion ban should be enacted at the
Federal level ultimately gain power of the Federal government,
then that, of course, would be potentially a ban nationwide.
I am running out of time. I will just 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 in women of color are even
worse.
You, of course, are a doctor, and I know you are an expert
in this area. I wonder if you might have any just final words
or thoughts of wisdom as to what the Congress can do with
respect to improving maternal health outcomes.
Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. The Witness
may answer the question.
Dr. Robinson. Well, the things that we could do is that 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 to just look at ways that we can
expand access to healthcare, and not looking at--including
reducing restrictions on insurance coverages for people to
access the care that they need.
Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. Dean?
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding this
important hearing on an extraordinary question of our time.
I have to thank all the Witnesses for being here, for
offering your heartfelt expertise and experience, and heartfelt
thoughts and courage.
I am thinking a lot about our past, present, and future and
paraphrasing something you are going to all be familiar with.
First, they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because
I'm 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'm not Black.
Then, they came for my daughters, my granddaughters, and me,
and there was no one left to speak for us.
Of course, I am paraphrasing Pastor Niemoller, 1946,
against the Nazi thinking and values. Yet, the argument applies
today. There are 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 because 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 1930 Scranton, Catholic
Scranton. Her mother became pregnant with a seventh child, and
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, and
the mother died, orphaning six children.
My mother-in-law never knew her own mother. She told that
story so that 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?
Dr. Robinson. It seems quite plausible that may be the
case.
Ms. Dean. 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, although in Texas we are post-Roe in
many ways? What are the risks right now that you are seeing in
your practice?
Dr. Robinson. One of the things that I have experienced is
patients who have what we call an inevitable abortion. It is
where a patient is pregnant; the cervix is open. The patient is
having bleeding, but there is still cardiac activity or 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. So, in
those instances, we have mothers who their lives are put at
risk in that situation.
I have experienced it with a patient of my own, where we
needed to start medication to expedite delivery, and there was
refusal and a lot of back-and-forth before we could get
administrative approval to move on with the care that the
patient needed.
That is one of the reasons why I think that we really need
to look at the decision that we are making. The other side has
highlighted all these dark ideas about what happens with
abortion care, and they are looking at a very few examples of
sometimes what sounds like it could possibly be bad medicine.
Like I said, there is already legislation, there are already
laws in place for that, and 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.
Ms. Dean. 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 would become all pro-choice, the government's choice,
not a woman's choice, not an individual's choice to
reproductive freedom.
I worry for my daughter--I have three sons--I worry for my
daughters-in-law. I worry for my three granddaughters for their
future, because what their future will be is not what I
enjoyed--the chance for me to plan, alongside my husband, when
we would have children; how many we would have; what we would
be able to do with our own independent freedom, and a most
personal decision, when and whether to have children.
Ms. Arrambide, I thank you so much for having this
conversation with us. Your courage is remarkable, and you leave
here with your dignity intact, even though some of these
conversations didn't leave with their dignity intact.
Finally, Ms. Glenn 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 am 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 everyone 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 become a ban and the law of the land.
I thank you and I yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
Ms. Ross?
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to all the Witnesses for testifying today.
We are here today to discuss one of the greatest threats to
women and family that our country has seen in 50 years. If it
holds, the Supreme Court's draft opinion overruling Roe will,
effectively, allow States to ban abortion entirely. Denial of
necessary care, including abortion, can have profound and
lasting impacts on people's lives.
Denial of access to abortion will be particularly harmful
to women who already face disparate access to all sorts of
kinds of care, including people of color, people with
disabilities, people in rural areas in my State of North
Carolina, and low-income people.
In States like mine, we have not expanded Medicaid for more
than half a million people. We already see significant
disparities in who can access care and corresponding
disparities in health outcomes. Women who fall into the
Medicaid gap in nonexpansion States like North Carolina are
frequently unable to access contraception; unable to get
prenatal care and delayed in accessing care during their
pregnancies.
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 healthcare.
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.
Ms. Goodwin. Well, individuals who have greater means will
be able to afford childcare, afford to be able to travel out of
State, be able to have a hotel out of State, the ability to be
able to get healthcare services and abortion care out of State.
For individuals who happen to be poor and people of color, they
are already subject to disproportionate police surveillance and
surveillance by other people in society. This will only be
inflamed to an even greater extent, and when abortion access is
not available in their State, that will result in high rates of
maternal mortality, which we already see, and also, maternal
morbidity. These are people who stand the risk of being
reported 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 this anti-abortion backdrop.
Ms. Ross. 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?
Dr. Robinson. Thank you.
Yes, I, too, live in a State that did not accept Medicaid
expansion. So, as I said in my testimony, in Alabama the
maternal mortality rate is five times more than that of our
White counterpart, and that is higher than the national
average. I think this directly corresponds to access to quality
healthcare. So, with that, without taking Medicaid expansion,
then my people are being harmed by this.
Ms. Ross. Do you see a hypocrisy between people who would
deny access to abortion care at the same time they are denying
access to healthcare?
Dr. Robinson. Absolutely.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, briefly, could we
allow Ms. Glenn Foster to reply briefly to the very personal
comments Ms. Dean directed to her.
Chair Nadler. The gentlelady has yielded back.
Ms. Bush?
Ms. Bush. I thank you, Chair Nadler, for swiftly convening
today's hearing.
I am a proud mother of two beautiful children. I am also a
person who terminated two unexpected pregnancies. I am here to
express my unwavering support for anyone who has ever decided
to terminate a pregnancy.
Whether a 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 option 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 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.
Ms. Arrambide, what has SB 8 and other abortion bans in
Texas meant for low-income people of color who need abortions?
Ms. Arrambide. Thank you for your question.
I think like 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 nonbinary people,
people in rural communities, people that live on the fringes of
society, the immigrants, the undocumented people. Their access
to care has been decimated.
For the rest of the people that aren't afraid to seek
abortion care because the laws are so confusing or they might
risk being sued, those people have had to travel, on average,
about 1,300 miles, sometimes as far as 2,400 miles, to access
care that should be available within their community. That
affects so many people in Texas and so many people we love.
We are talking about a State that has not expanded
Medicaid. We are talking about a State that cut family
planning; that has decimated any sort of support system for
these families and people. Abortion has become practically
inaccessible for the majority.
Ms. Bush. Thank you for those critical insights.
I remember when I earned around $7 an hour. Baby formula
cost around $12 a can. I received formula through WIC, but that
only lasted about two and a half weeks out of the month. That
was back around 2000.
Over two decades later, the cost of baby formula has
increased to anywhere between--what? --$17 and $22. Yet, the
Federal minimum wage hasn't changed much since 2009, and it is
just $7.25. So, poverty is expensive, especially in a society
that fails to invest in living wages and a strong social safety
net.
So, here is my message for anyone trying to take away a
person's bodily autonomy: If you are for life, you will support
universal paid 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
WIC, TANF, and SNAP programs. If you are for life, you would
support policies to help children and families meet their
material needs. You would support the constitutional right to
abortion. Abortion care is healthcare. Let me say that again:
Abortion care is healthcare, and it is imperative that we
protect that right for everyone--everyone meaning all,
everyone.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
This concludes today's hearing.
We thank all the Witnesses for participating.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the Witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
Without objection--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, really quick before
you adjourn, we are going to have a statement entered into the
record, Ms. Glenn Foster's response to what I thought was an ad
hominem attack by Ms. Dean.
Chair Nadler. Fine.
[The information follows:]
MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA
FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
Video of Ms. Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO,
Americans United for Life, for the record is available at the
following link:
https://www1.cbn.com/content/i-had-four-people-holding-me-down-woman-
recounts-horror-forced-abortion
Chair Nadler. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:59 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]