first kind in america's history that the supreme court has revoked a constitutionally protected right. the first time. as a result, a woman's personal decision to make her own reproductive health care choice is no longer protected or guaranteed by the constitution. in the words of justice kagan, sotomayor, the conservative majority has "consigned women to second-class citizenship." in overturning roe, the supreme court has a least a health-care crisis across america. make no mistake -- women's health and in some cases, their lives, are at risk. today, the committee will examine the very real consequences of the unprecedented decision. we start with a video. [video] >> the supreme court has overturned roe v. wade. >> pregnancy laws can land people in prison. pregnant people being criminalized for pregnancy outcomes. >> data collected from fertility apps and google searches could be used to prosecute abortion. black women and women of color are disproportionately criminalized. >> some of the bans do have civil and criminal penalties in terms of how they will be applied. every time a woman gets abortions, women who are younger, women who are old, women of all races, women who never thought that they would be seeking an abortion. >> if i'm not mature enough to make a decision to have a child, i'm definitely not mature enough to have one. >> if i have another high-risk pregnancy that puts my own life at risk? i do want another baby. and now i am scared to. >> i no longer have those rights . >> it is an effort to punish women, an effort to turn neighbors into bounty hunters of sorts. we end up having more abortions because of a lack of access to reproductive health including contraception. this law is not just about abortion, it is about reproductive health. women are going to die as a result of this. they are worried about breaking the law and going to jail and women will suffer and they will die. >> since the decision, at least 10 states have banned abortion. the bans include refusing exceptions for the life of the mother, and many do not even provide exceptions for rape or incest. so what exactly do these efforts mean in the real world? they mean that a woman facing complications in pregnancy could die waiting in the hallway of a hospital because a doctor must weigh the risk of jail time against making the best decision for the health of the patient. and organizations that help someone travel to a state like illinois may face legal liability. consider a letter sent to the simply austin law firm last week by a group of conservative texas lawmakers. which threatened to "impose additional civil and criminal sanctions upon law firms that pay for abortions or abortion travel." some republican lawmakers have even sought to punish women seeking abortions. in louisiana, republican legislators sought to advance a bill that would have subjected women who terminate pregnancy to charges of criminal homicide. it is a majority opinion that justice alito claims by overturning roe and casey, the court was simply returning the power to decide how abortion may be regulated to the states. but that raises many questions with no answers. leading health care providers and patients to navigate new restrictions that will likely face further constitutional damage. for example, in his concurring opinion, justice kavanaugh insists that a state cannot infringe on the court constitutional right to interstate travel. well, it seems some state republican lawmakers didn't get the message. they are proposing bills that will turn the state borders into checkpoint terminals for patients seeking abortions. in a post roe america, it is now abortion rights that are in peril. every constitutional right is under threat. that is not my conclusion, it is justice clarence thomas'conclusion. your constitutional right to privacy could be next. justice thomas declared that the court should "eliminate the constitutional right to birth control, marriage equality and consensual relationships between lgbtq people." this radical reversal for america comes in the aftermath of republican leader mcconnell's blocking president obama's right to file supreme court vacancy. president donald trump pledged to appoint nominees that would overturn roe v. wade. that with the box each one of them had to check before they could appear before this committee. today, three and four americans say they have lost faith in the supreme court. it is easy to see why. families are living in fear that some of their most cherished rights are now on the conservative chopping block. so what do we do to protect these rights? what do we do to defend women who have already had their rights revoked? under republican control, they would pose a federal ban on abortion. democrats have a different plan. protect your rights with a federal statutory right to an abortion. in fact, that is exactly what the vast majority of americans support. keeping access to abortion legal. a woman's choice to get an abortion is her choice alone. politicians have no business sitting in the waiting room with the doctor. with that, i will turn to ranking member grassley for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a very important hearing. i cast my first vote february, 1972 as a member of the iowa house of representatives. there was a motion before the house to repeal iowa's ban on abortion. i was one of 44 people in a 44-44 vote that voted not to repeal that dale, and obviously it's it didn't happen. next year, we had roe v. wade and there was never an issue in the iowa legislature until potentially it could be now as a result of the overturn. we are here today because the supreme court has corrected a wrong that has impacted millions of lives since 1973. we are here because the supreme court, in a meticulous and well-reasoned opinion returned the decision of abortions back to the states. for many americans, this decision is about far more than correcting a flawed legal analysis. it means protecting the rights of the unborn. this ruling doesn't ban the practice of abortion, but instead empowers the people to their account and relet -- elected representatives to make commonsense policy decisions. it takes policy out of the hands of unelected judges. i understand with a decision of this magnitude comes differences of opinion, and robust debate on the next steps. that is ok, and i welcome that. we live in a democracy, and with differences of opinion and passion for policies, all that followed by thoughtful debate can lead us to the best outcomes for the american people. however, the treatment of supreme court justices, pregnancy centers, and conservative women has been outrageous since the decision was leaked. remember this. eight out of 10 americans do not support abortion on demand right up to the time of birth. first, regardless of views on this issue, we should all respect the rule of the impartial judiciary and the decisions that it renders. seeking to intimidate or attack the board or undermined its credibility because of an outcome that you don't agree with his dangerous, and that is not an answer. justices have had their addresses published online, have been subjected to illegal pressure campaigns, and one justice was even the victim of an attempted assassination. i called on the justice department to enforce the law and protect the justices and their families from these very real threats. the lack of a response from both the justice department and the white house is extremely, extremely disappointing. along with the threats against the justices, threats against pro-life and crisis pregnancy centers have dramatically increased since the leak of the decision by pro-abortion extremists. there have been at least 40 violent attacks on crisis pregnancy centers, religious institutions, and other pro-life entities since the leak and before the court even issued its final opinion. the first pictures i have with me is a crisis pregnancy center in north carolina that was vandalized with pro-abortion and pro-nt five graffiti. that is in the corner, the nt for sign. another woman in oregon was set on fire, causing significant damage as you can see behind me. i pray for these centers and the thousands of patients they serve every day. i encourage all of my colleagues as well as myself to condemn the violence and vandalism. i want to ensure that these violent attacks are recognized by the fbi and are being properly investigated for what they are: cases of abortion-related violent extremism. let me be clear: very clear. threats and violence are not the answer. i also want to bring your attention to the incredible group of women that we have here with us today. we know women have been the center of the pro-life movement, and tirelessly advocating for the lives of the unborn and the well-being of mothers everywhere. i would like to introduce to you a few of these women in addition to our witnesses who i will introduce any moment. we have here witnessed today dr. christine francis. she is an ob/gyn in indiana. she chaired the board of the american association of obstetricians and gynecologists and a board member of the indiana right to life. dr. francis spent time working in romania and burma and working for three years as the only ob/gyn at a major hospital in rural kenya. she has dedicated her life professionally and personally to protecting the lives of the unborn and educating people on the dangers of the abortion industry. we are also fortunate to have someone like her in the practice of medicine. also, catherine glenn foster with us, who has in the past been a witness before this committee. she serves as a resident ceo of the americans united for life. she shared her story of having an abortion at 19 due to the extreme psychological break she faced. she felt alone after her decision. i am sorry for the loss that you experienced, catherine, and i hope that we can do better to give young women the love and support that they deserve, no matter what. the executive director of the capitol hill pregnancy center just down the road from us a short way provides preventative care as well as complete, accurate information pertaining to pregnancy and pregnancy options. the two also have dealt with vandalism but they continue to provide services such as counseling in childbirth, and parenting classes. thank you for the work that the center does to serve those in the d.c. area who need support the most. i also want to thank representatives of the incredible groups that we have here today, march for life, susan b. anthony, women of america. family research consults, to name a few. they also do incredible work advocating for the lives of the unborn and for that, i thank you. let's have a productive discussion today on how we can best support women and families going forward. as i said before, threatening justin's is -- justices, pregnancy centers and churches is not the answer. i hope the extreme rhetoric that gives rise to this violence will not be a of the conversation today. i would like to request to enter into the record the statements from the american association of polling. thank you. >> without objection, let me start our positive and bipartisan statement. time and again, i have stated political violence of any kind is unacceptable. no matter who commits it, no matter what. i condemn all violence and threats of violence in the strongest possible terms, whether it be targets of pregnancy counseling centers or abortion clinics. violence is never an appropriate form of protest. this committee has passed legislation that will protect our judges, and i am glad we did. i'm sorry to say that one of the most important acts, which would give the supreme court greater discretion in protecting the justices and their families among other conditions to protect judges has been held up on the floor and i can say the person holding it up is a jr. republican senator from kentucky. i think it is a serious mistake. lives are at risk, as we fail to put this into law and to give even more resources to the judiciary to protect their members. today, we welcome five witnesses and i thank them for joining us. i will briefly introduce the democratic witnesses then turned to senator grassley. the first witness is lieutenant governor julian stratton, the 48 lieutenant governor in the history of our state. she previously served as a member of the house of representatives and i am grateful for her traveling here. professor bridges, a professor of law at the university of california berkeley school of law. i also want to thank professor bridges who is here celebrating her birthday, soy understand she is in the audience, and we all come her. dr. -- is an ob/gyn and chief medical officer of planned parenthood in missouri. thank you for joining us today. let me turn to senator grassley for his introductions. >> my first person is denise harley, senior counsel defending freedom and director of the center of life. she leads her team litigation and advocacy effort to defend pro-life legislation around the country. she also works with pro-life allies on behalf of her organization and works to defend the first amendment freedoms of pro-life health care professionals at resource centers. she took the primary role in drafting the briefs to the u.s. supreme court, resulting in a free-speech victory for california pro-life pregnancy centers. we welcome you. next, the executive director of the alternative pregnancy center who has worked with them for seven years. the center is a nonprofit, pro-life women's medical which seeks to address the holistic aspect of unplanned pregnancy including the medical, emotional material and spiritual needs of the mother. the services are free through the clinic. the center provides pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, abortion pill reversals, testing and treatment, prenatal care, gynecological care, abortion recovery classes, and contraceptive education. prior to working at the center, she worked as director of health services for the group of financial strategies. we welcome you as well. >> thank you senator grassley. let me explain the traditional procedure before the committee. five minutes for opening statements and then members will be recognized in order for five minutes questions. before we proceed, i ask for witnesses to please stand and raise their right hand for the administration of the oath. do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record flecked the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. please proceed. >> good and thank you, chairman durbin, ranking member grassley, and distinguished members of the senate judiciary committee for the opportunity to testify today. i am giuliana stratton, lieutenant governor of the great state of illinois, and i use she-her pronouns. since coming into office, we have been focused on the health, safety, and access to opportunities for all women of illinois of all backgrounds and ages. one way that we have worked to make that a reality is by preserving and protecting legal abortion in illinois. in 2019, governor christopher signed the reproductive health act, which enshrined reproductive rights into state law. it repealed outdated laws criminalizing abortion, and requires private health insurance plans to cover abortion as the final reproductive health procedure that it is. we made a vow that our state would be a beacon of hope for all which was a promise that we made to the people of illinois, and i come before you today because people throughout the entire midwest are relying on our commitment to protect and preserve women's rights, namely, the right to an abortion. it is no secret that illinois stands out as one of the only states in the u.s. where our laws on legal abortion have not been impacted by the supreme court overturning of roe v. wade. we are not just an oasis of reproductive care, but an island. and here is what that looks like. it looks like disenfranchised yet determined patients coming from every surrounding state but also from as far away as tennessee, texas, louisiana, alabama and or it up. it looks like the entire staff of our state's abortion clinics fielding phone calls for appointments because the number of out-of-state patients has doubled since roe v. wade was overturned, and that is on top of the nearly 10,000 women who already came to illinois seeking abortion care. according to 2020 data. in the coming months and years, these numbers will inevitably increase, and sadly, too, will be preventable suffering and pain of women and families across the nation facing the negative ramification of a post- roe america. because of the history of systemic racism, we know that these are amplified within the black and latinx communities. it would be devastating for black women whose maternal or telly rate is already two to three times higher than that of white women because of structural racism and misogyny. without safe and legal access to abortion, that number will increase by over 30% among black women and nearly 20% for hispanic women. let's take a moment to just let that sink in. we are facing a future world with needless death despite 61% of american leaving abortion should be legal in most or all cases according to a pure research survey conducted in march, 2022. it is hard to overestimate just how devastating the outcome of this ruling is and will be despite our years of preparations. before the threats to roe v. wade were fully realized, illinois was proactive, upholding bodily autonomy and protecting rights to an abortion and still, the overturning of roe v. wade has sent us down a dark, agonizing path. the supreme court decision does not "leave abortion up to the states" when every state will be impacted. to be clear, this means every city, town, county, urban, suburban and rural, and our rural and unincorporated areas are already experiencing that when it comes to accessing health care overall. the weight of this ruling will surely be felt across state borders. in illinois and in states like ours, we are bracing for what is to come, as these diverse communities across the nation turned to us. -- called on the president to move forward on key items that would address have states like ours would be affected, by creating a centralized hub to ease the burden on facility capacity amid higher demand, and most of all, illinois and other states with legal abortion need more access to federal money to support demand. i commend president biden for the steps he has taken to safeguard access to reproductive care through executive order which included actions to expand access to contraception. this is a great start. in illinois, all hands are on deck as we brace for what is coming because we know we are the only lifeline for so many after so much has been taken away from women, from the american people. i say this not just as lieutenant governor of illinois, but as a mother of four daughters. my daughters who now have fewer rights than i had. and based on justice clarence thomas'concurring opinion, it is likely this may not be the last right that will be stripped from future generations as access to contraceptives and the right to love and marry who you choose have already come under threat to be overturned. in illinois, we will not go back. we will not be silent or stand on the sidelines, and i think illinois legislative leaders and air states journal assembly and all the committee advocates who have joined forces to ensure just that. we already know how dangerous it is to turn back the clock of process -- progress and i asked each of you as leaders to help us push forward before it is too late. thank you. >> thank you for, we extended the period for your statement a little bit in the same courtesy we extend to others. >> chairman durbin, ranking member grassley, and members of the community, i am denise harley. the decision provides tremendous hope for women and children across this country. for the first time in half a century, the people who are elected representatives have the legal authority to affirm the dignity of women and fully protect unborn babies. the supreme court was correct to overturn this egregious decision in roe v. wade for seven male justices saying that motherhood brought on a distressing life in future. i am here with my own mom and i have two children at home. millions of mothers nationwide i joined in saying that the ruling in roe v. wade was a shameful, dehumanizing and false characterization of the role that women in moms play in our society. i know that every woman's story is unique and for some, finding that you're pregnant is very difficult and unwelcome news, but pregnancy is not a barrier to success. motherhood does not ruin your chance to have a happy and fulfilling life. to say otherwise is demeaning and grading. this is also a victory for the constitution, at the decision explains nothing in our constitution supports a so-called right to abortion. even constitutional law scholars who are pro-abortion have admitted this. roe was a smokescreen and the detriment on widget it rest is nowhere to be found. justice ginsburg said legally, scientifically, morally, it is difficult to justify. the united states became an extreme outlier in abortion law. 75% of nations around the world don't support elective abortion at all or limit it to 12 weeks. under roe v. wade, the united states join a half of countries and in human rights abuses china and north korea to allow or should on-demand after 20 weeks of pregnancy. that decision unshackled states from the judicial power grab based on falsehoods about history and science. now we can apply scientific knowledge to that decision. it is crystal clear that states have a compelling interest in protecting unborn children at every stage of development. we learned that babies in the first 12 weeks develop heartbeats and brain waves. they can pick up, and they even taste what the mom eats. it is highly reasonable and a right for americans to protect them and american citizens are prepared to do so. reports that american supported roe are extremely misleading. roe allows for abortion up to the moment of birth, and nearly 90% of americans oppose abortion in the third trimester, let alone until birth. now, for women who feel overwhelmed by the prospect of motherhood, there is hope. and it doesn't involve destroying a baby. thousands of pregnancy resource centers around the nation stand ready to support women at no cost with services both during and after a pregnancy. many are also pouring resources into creative programs to ensure that every pregnant mom can access what she needs. churches, adoption agencies, and other organizations are redoubling their efforts a new day for our country. the opportunity to build a better society than the ones the courts forced upon us in 1973. a society that not only affirm that life is a human right, but that it provides opportunity for women. we as a nation can no longer use roe as an excuse to treat pregnancy as a woman's problem that she alone must solve. it is time to implement in a bit of support systems and empower women to pursue full, empowering lives for their families and themselves. illegal landscape is changing as we speak. i am so grateful that we are entering a new era where the american people have the opportunity to lead the world in upholding the dignity of women, children, and of human life. thank you for your time. >> chairman durbin, ranking member grassley and members of the senate committee for the judiciary, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. i am a professor of law at the university of california berkeley school of law. i am here today to explain how the supreme court radical decision impacts the women's health organization to take away constitutional protection for reproductive rate of and harms people of color. the court upheld mississippi's ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy in the process, overturned roe v. wade. when it interpreted the fourth amended do process clause to protect the right to terminate a pregnancy insofar as that clause only protects rights that are deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition and in the concept of liberty. the vast majority of the country in 1868, the year the 14th amendment was ratified, it determines whether their abortion rights could be so characterized. after canvassing abortion regulations in 1868, the majority can conclude that abortion rights are not part of the nation's history and tradition. the painfully obvious point to make is that people with the capacity for pregnancy were not part of the politics during a period of the nation's history that the majority believe is decisive of the constitutional inquiry. women could not vote in the country for another half-century after 1868. because women could not participate in the democratic process, one can reasonably assume that their interests were not reflected in any of the nations laws, including foreclosing a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. that is the majority decision. to attempt to divide the meaning of the constitution by looking at the nations history in that time is -- to privilege characterized by the former act in the people with the capacity for pregnancy. people of color, specifically black people, will feel the impact of the court decision more than any other racial group. sblack people' abortion rate is three to four times white peoples' abortian rate as a direct result of their rate of higher unintended pregnancy and higher rates of poverty. a frequent recited reason for terminating an unintended pregnancy is that they cannot afford to have a child at that time. thus, the unequal burden the potties that black people there means they are more likely to face and unintended pregnancy and in the second instance, necessary to carry the pregnancy to term and raise a child. when states are permitted to use the criminal or civil law to make abortion inaccessible, states limit a service upon which black people desperately rely. further, the number of -- imprisons have gone tremendously since 1973. the incarcerated population has quadrupled in the last years, with close to 2 million people in jails and prisons today. the country currently is much more -- than it was in the generation that preceded roe v. wade to address social problems. moreover, there now exists precedent for punishing people for the outcome, a precedent that simply did not exist during the era terminal abortion laws that preceded roe. in the 1980's during the crack cocaine scare, states began to use creative interpretations of the criminal law to prosecute black people during their pregnancies. prosecution during pregnancy continued to the present. further, criminal punishment of pregnant people who suffered poor birth outcomes occurred outside of the context of use. for example, prosecutors that charges against pregnant women and attempted to vilify -- as a result. i could go on and on. also, a number of abortion-rights opponents currently claim to consider a pregnant person who has an abortion to be a victim. i am skeptical about the sincerity or endurance of this belief in light of our current practice of punishing pregnant people for their pregnancy outcomes. even if like people attempted to self-manage abortion despite criminal punishment, we should fully expect that black people will be more frequently and more harshly punished for breaking the law. we should have this expectation because as a general matter, black people are more likely than their nonblack counterparts to be arrested, rescued, indicted and convicted for the same crimes and endure longer sentences than their nonblack counterparts, even when controlling for relevant factors. the conclusion, i cannot overstate the level of harm and chaos that this decision has already cost people seeking abortion care, providers and practical support organizations. the crisis in the united states signals the need for a bold policy response, everything from the need for comprehensive paid family and medical leave to laws that urgently protect the right. thank you. >> thank you, professor. please proceed. >> mr. chairman, ranking member grassley and members of this committee, thank you so much for the privilege and honor of being here today. i'm the director of alternative pregnancy center in sacramento, california. i came to this by a roundabout road that began in a very emotional place. a number of years ago on a day my sister and i were supposed to leave college, she collapsed on the ground. i said what is wrong as i looked into her eyes. she looked up at me and she said i'm pregnant. i still remember the fear in her eyes. i see that fear almost every single day for the women who come into the center. they need help, they need someone to talk to, and they need hope. i know because my sister needed all of those things. our family needed all of those things, and we found them in our local pregnancy care center and years later, because i wanted to give that same help and hope and support to others, i became the director at alternatives. as an organization, the staff of our clinic offers our patients compassionate, holistic care in whatever gentle ways we can to their physical, emotional and even spiritual needs. so it grieves me that since the supreme court announces that decision, a great deal of misinformation has been spread about who we are and what we do, to let me share with you some of the facts. our clinic is one of nearly 3000 pregnancy care centers serving women across america. each year, hundreds of thousands come to our clinics, to use the free medical care, emotional support and practical resources that will enable them to carry their pregnancies to term. our clinic alone in sacramento provides over $1 million of free medical services each year. we charge them nothing. that means we never financially benefit from any choice a woman makes. we make no profit of any kind off the women who turn to us for help. we offer pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, prenatal care after 24 weeks, well woman visits. we test and treat for sexually transmitted diseases, we offer abortion services, abortion recovery counseling, and parenting classes, and if finances are a problem, we have diapers, wipes, baby formula, baby food, baby clothing, baby supplies, and if a woman needs a hotel room, we provide that as well. we pay for all of that. it doesn't matter who she is, where she comes from or what her past is. at our center, all medical services are provided by a staff of licensed medical professionals including doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners and medical assistancts. they are deeply compassionate people because most of them have experienced abortion for themselves. our ob/gyn doctor was an abortionist. her ambitions, her relationships, we do not make any decision. we listen, we try to hear her heart, we offer professional services and emotional support. whether she chooses parenting, adoption, or abortion, we will continue to be there for her, for years if necessary. many women choose abortion because they lack the resources and support they need to confidently choose to parents. over the last five years, americans eat -- american pregnancy centers have served nearly 2 million women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy and wanted an alternative to abortion. yet pregnancy care centers from coast to being targeted for violent assaults of vandalism and hateful attacks and lies in the media. just last week, at the exhibit shows, a man approached air care center armed with a machete. we have been forced to hire 24/7 on-site security, reinforced doors and bullet proof the walls because they keep being painted with anti-graffiti coating. we have pepper spray because of threats of violence. we have been forced to expend valuable resources, resources for women of up to $150,000 just to protect ourselves. why? because we offer free care to women. what we do, though, is worth the risk. every community needs a place for women facing unplanned pregnancy who are seeking dependable, medical resources in a safe, caring environment during one of the most difficult times of their lives. you are pregnant. three of the most powerful worth a woman will hear in her life. for some, the words bring incredible joy, and for others, incredible fear. both deserve support. i thank you for the privilege of sharing with you a brief glimpse of hope, service and compassion on pregnancy centers in so many others across this country provide to women every single day. >> thank you. >> thank you. i am a board-certified ob/gyn, trained to provide the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive health care putting abortion care. in practice in missouri and illinois, two states were people have such vastly different realities that it should be considered by each one of you to be un-american. on june 24, when the supreme court overruled roe v. wade, it effectively created two nations. one for those his reproductive freedoms belong to themselves, and another his reproductive freedom belongs to a small group of politicians who have effectively appointed themselves as decision-makers over our bodies, our lives, and their futures. today, i'm here to speak to the patients i serve every day. people from across the midwest who navigate a ridiculous obstacle course just to access basic care. we already know just 18 days into this reality how it is disastrously, getting lives and putting doctors in possible situations. since ceasing abortion care in st. louis, the last remaining clinic in missouri, a health center in illinois just across the mississippi river has cared for patients who have traveled as far as 1000 miles each way. each one of them has told me they had no choice but to travel hours and hours for care. almost overnight, we have seen appointments triple. that is pretty on top of the double what schedule we were sustaining in the wake of texas and oklahoma's abortion bands. overturning roe will not stop the need for abortion. the supreme court decision has already pushed people, the people each one of you represent, into extreme circumstances in order to access one of the safest and most common health care procedures. in missouri and several other states, abortion is banned except in medical emergency. in other words, it were for doctors to avoid prison time, instead of seeing a patient before their health condition becomes life-threatening, doctors must now contemplate how sick is sick enough before providing life-saving abortion care. people will suffer unnecessary harm as they wait for permission from lawyers to tell him that they can proceed. in some circumstances, the abortion care will come too late. not only is this agenda unpopular, it is deeply anti-life. we already know that abortion care is inextricably linked maternal health outcomes and in missouri, mentality is quiet times higher than that for white women. forcing people to pregnancy they do not want or cannot bear cost lives. forcing people into parenting without policies that harass health-care costs, paid family leave or a formula shortage will cost lives. antiabortion agenda is anti-life and hypocrisy at its worst. i had a place for our allies, too. those of you who are committed to protecting reproductive freedoms. listen to those of us who have been warning about this moment for years. work with critical access states to ensure that abortion remains accessible. use every bit of your power to do something. on june 24, one hour before the supreme court dismantle abortion rights, i was sitting next to hobby of becerra along with partners and allies in missouri including the congresswoman from the first district, represented of cori bush. we asked the biden administration to declare a public health emergency to support the patients who will have to flee their home states for abortion care. 36 million people of reproductive age now or soon believe in a state where version is banned. senators, i come before you tired, frustrated and angry. those of us on the front lines, we are the ones who are holding back this public health crisis in the country. i speak on behalf of my colleagues, abortion providers and advocates. we deserve better. we need action, and we need it now. we are out of time. thank you for inviting me to share about this moment in history which i'm certain will be a stain as we move forward. abortion is normal, it is an act of love, and it is fundamentally health care. >> thank you. we are now going for the members to ask questions. dr. mcnicholas, you've already addressed this issue that i want to return to because i think it is critical important. there are some who say that those who support abortion procedures are alarmist and exaggerating the danger that women face because of the decision. i think you have alluded to this and i want to make it part of the record. the united states already has the highest maternal mortality rates of comparable nations. that means more women die in childbirth in this country than any other countries. we are one of only 13 countries where the maternal mortality rate is worse today than it was 25 years ago. every year, nine hundred women nationwide die as a result of pregnancy-related complications. 70,000 suffer a fatal outcomes. women of color are three times more likely to die as a result of pregnancy than white women. and yet, he could get much worse. in recent study estimated that the nationwide ban on abortion would increase mortality rate by 20%. among black woman, an increase of 33%. by ending the constitutional right to abortion, the supreme court has ensured the maternal mortality in the united states will increase. states with the most restrictive abortion laws already have a 7% higher maternal mortality rate in states with fewer restrictions. tell me the practical side of this. the cases that you have run into as a practicing physician, as a doctor where you had to make this life or death decision. >> thank you. i just want to acknowledge the fact that you are right. we are on the cusp of seeing that rate increase. the six states with the highest maternal mortality rate are six states that immediately moved to ban abortion, and that is not a coincidence. in addition to the public health application that we won't know for years, impacts on long-term maternal mortality rates, we are already seeing mass chaos among ob/gyns, emergency room physicians, and we are talking about people being denied or delayed care for pregnancy and non-pregnancy related conditions. arthritis, cancer, medications that we use frequently to control those conditions are being denied to patients because they might also contribute to miscarriage or could be used for abortion and other indications. ob/gyn's foresee outpatient and emergency room's, while they are waiting for hospital lawyers to decide if this patient sick enough? when the consequence of violating a law is criminal, doctors are putting impossible positions where they know the right care, they know what to do to help somebody, and yet they have to wait, making folks sustain totally preventable harm and it is embarrassing and should be shameful. >> professor bridges, you made a reference in your testimony to 1868, and used as an example when justice alito referred to the historical precedent that at that moment, american history, women were not legally entitled to vote. i also know that in that moment, women entered into a contract in the united states of america and when a single woman practiced law in the united states, that was the historic basis that justice alito wanted to use to use the decision. could you, and on that particular aspect? >> absolutely, thank you for the question. it is a complete ploy to elevate the year 1868 as a moment of constitutional significance in terms of constitutional interpretation. it was a period of time in which women recently not part of the body politics. it was in the 1970's that we started to see movements that women could actually become something that we could call equal citizens. also the selectivity of justice alito, he chooses to elevate 1868 in the context of abortion rights because it will lead to the result that he likes, and cases in other contexts, he doesn't engage in historical inquiry at all. in his affirmative-action jurisprudence, 1868 was also irrelevant time that we should look for when interpreting the equal protection clause. it could be incurred by the framers thought when they ratified the equal protection clause in terms that there ought to be race-conscious efforts to make newly freed, formerly enslaved people of color members of the body politics. he will have to lead to a conclusion that affirmative-action is constitutional but he does not engage in that historical inquiry because not lead to the results that he likes. >> thank you. a little over my time, but i want to give you a chance to respond on maternal mortality issues and protection of women, and i have to give you fair warning that your statement that illinois is a uniquely western state on the subject is going to be challenged by the senator from minnesota. tenant governor. >> thank you for that question and just to add what the witnesses have already stated, in addition to that, i would point out this will not only have a disproportionate impact on black women, we will also talk about the history of maternal mortality and how it disproportionately impact black women. the abortion ban and other restrictions will also have a disproportionate impact on those women who are from lower income communities, immigrant women, young women, women from rural communities and lgbtq plus community. there are so many wide ranging ramifications. the bottom line is that everyone should be able to decide for themselves what is best for their own health care in conjunction with their position. this is not something that should be decided with a political agenda. it is not something that should be a decision made by politicians. these are decisions that are very personal and should be made and when they have health implications, as we are talking about maternal mortality, these are some examples of why it is not a politicians determination, it should be the individual's decision with their health care professional. >> thank you. senator grassley? >> i'm going to repeat some statistics you gave according to the institute pregnancy centers performing 486,000 three ultrasounds, 731 -- and pregnancy tests last year. 291,000 clients attended parenting and prenatal education classes, and 25 of those locations offer material assistance that babies need when a family can't support it. so can you tell us how you help pregnant women, and even more importantly, would there be a disparate impact on these communities if your senators weren't available? >> yes, thank you for the question. we give women free medical care, free parenting classes and baby supplies, free medical and emotional support after an abortion. along with that, pregnancy care center spent the entire -- giving $266 million per year of free medical care and resources to the community nationwide. it is important to know that pregnancy centers often support women even after they've had an abortion. as a matter of fact, we had a 19-year-old young women coming to the clinic who did not want an abortion. she was forced to take the abortion pill by her parents. she testified to the fact that when she took the pill, she was isolated in a bathroom all by herself. there was no nurse, no pain medication other than either proven, and she testified specifically on the floor of the toilet and in her bathroom and at one point, she said she looked down and what they told her was a clump of cells was a fully formed baby laying on the floor. devastated, she claimed she picked up that baby and carried it around, put it in a plastic bag and several weeks later, took it to a memorial and aerated. -- buried it. this is not health care. a woman alone, by herself in a bathroom experiencing tremendous pain and seeing the effects of it. a young woman who has an abortion at an abortion clinic never has to drive by that abortion clinic ever again. but a young woman who goes into labor on the floor in her bathroom and physically sees everything that comes out of her and experiences the pain in the midst of that moment has to wake up every single morning and relive that experience. again, this is not health care. >> whether it is an unelected board or the thinnest possible margins in congress, we need to respect our institutions. the supreme court shouldn't be taking powers away from legislatures to make national policy. neither should the filibuster be destroyed to enact a bill that allows abortion until birth, a policy eight of 10 americans reject. what are the constitutional and practical problems with various proposals that we've seen to enshrine abortion at a federal level? congress to have the constitutional power to an abortion regime on the states. we cannot find that anywhere in congress's powers. it would be a gross overreach that would trample on principles of federalism. as a policy matter it's problematic. the example i am aware of, the current so-called women's health protection act which has a nice name, but if you read it, it is actually an abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy bill. that as a policy is terrific. it is completely out of step with what the american people want. americans are overwhelmingly opposed to abortion on demand up to the moment of birth. the women's health protection act would allow a baby to be dismembered, torn apartment from them, just before entering the birth canal, for energy -- any reason whatsoever or no reason at all. it would overturn hundreds of state laws that are modest and common sense and protect life. so, as a constitutional matter, i do not think a congressional attempt to be -- to mandate abortion would be upheld in court. as a policy matter it's a horrific idea and we should be embarrassed the u.s. is considering something want that. >> think you senator grassley. senator feinstein. sen. feinstein: i was thinking back 50 years ago when abortion was illegal in -- and i was -- was legal and i was sitting on the california women's board of terms and parole setting sentences for women who committed abortion. i remember how terrible it was before the supreme court decided roe v. wade nearly 50 years ago. abortions were risky. they were difficult to obtain. women who travel to mexico to seek an abortion from an authorized provider, or, they would attempt to self induce an abortion using dangerous and potentially life-threatening methods. we know from those times, and i know from those times, that banning abortion care will not stop people from seeking abortions. it will only make abortion more deadly. overturning roe v. wade does nothing more than endanger the lives of women. i am really deeply concerned that state efforts to ban and criminalize abortion will once again emerge and harm the ability of women to seek vital medical care. so, dr. mcnicholas, from your experience as a provider, what impact have you seen from these state abortion bands on women seeking reproductive health care? and professor bridges, what can congress do to help protect people seeking an abortion? dr. nicholas: thank you for the question senator feinstein. i will start by acknowledging and agreeing that the legalization of abortion has never been the driver of its necessity. that was true for roe and it will be true now post. predecisional, there were states like missouri who had made it so difficult that the roe v. wade decision was inadequate and pushed abortion out of access for many already. the reality is right now in this moment today there are thousands, tens of thousands of people, navigating which bill can go unpaid, how to find somebody to watch their kids, making sure their transportation can get them thousands of miles to the next clinic, all in search of basic health care. we know abortion bands and restrictions alike disproportionately affect people that live in marginalized identities and are worse for people who exist in the intersections of oppression. we will see more people harmed by these decisions both as pregnancy outcomes as well as people who are being denied and delayed care outside of the abortion realm. sen. feinstein: as of this past weekend 21 states either have an abortion ban in effect, are expected to implement a band soon, or, have severely restricted abortion access in the state. these bands are forcing women to leave their home states in order to seek safe and legal reproductive health care. some states with abortion bands in place have begun discussing the potential next step of banning people from traveling to seek abortion care outside of their home state. my home state, california, recently passed legislation that would help protect abortion providers and individuals from other states that seek abortion care in california. professor bridges, if some states take this next step, banning travel to seek abortion, what legal protection should states hoping to protect abortion access put in place to prevent harm to patients visiting their states for care? professor bridges: thank you for your question, senator. we have not clearly established a constitutional right to travel. in state versus roe v. wade in 2009 the court interpreted the constitution as protecting the right to travel. we have seen in dobbs president can be overturned based on the membership of the court. in response to your question, what can congress do? congress can and should repeal the hyde amendment that prevents federal funds from being used on abortion care. this made it impossible for low income people to rely on health insurance or medicaid to cover the cost. it makes it impossible for people who rely on indian health service s, native people, deterrent to the 10 exam facilities that fulfill the federal government obligation to native people to provide health care. i want to note that congress can and should pass federal legislation that creates a statutory right to an abortion. the women's health protection act is a nice first step. there is no question congress has the authority to pass the wh pa because health care, they have the power under the commerce clause. health care is an activity that dad's ability -- substantially affects interstate commerce. the court upheld that and did not cast doubt on congress's ability to regulate health care. congress has the power to pass the wh pa and other efforts. sen. feinstein: it would be helpful with any statement in writing submitted to the committee. i would appreciate that. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator feinstein. senator cotton. sen. cotton: we have seen a market increase in violence and intimidation by pro-abortion group. left-wing mobs have gathered outside the homes of supreme court justices to intimidate them and affect their decision in the dobbs case in blatant decision -- opposition to federal law. attorney general merrick garland refused to enforce the federal law and the supreme court martial has had to go to the governors of virginia and maryland to plead with them to protect supreme court justices at their homes. a democratic hitman travel from california to try to assassinate brett kavanaugh. it's not just supreme court justices targeted. all abortion groups including one calling itself jane's revenge has claimed credit for firebombing a pro-life organization in madison wisconsin and numerous other firebombings, attacks, and acts of vandalism in more than a dozen states. the same group attacked and vandalized the camping office of a republican congressman. this weekend three churches in maryland were attacked. all three were vandalized and desecrated. two were set on fire. there attacks are under investigation. they are also believed to be related to pro-abortion causes. i would like to ask each of you, starting with the lieutenant governor, do you condemn the violent attacks, firebombings, by groups like jane's revenge? >> i emphasize that violence against anyone is wrong. no one should experience the to their safety or their well-being. i would also urge everyone to bring the same energy to the attacks taking place against abortion providers. and clinics. all across the board, violence is unacceptable. we are seeing violent acts as well as threats and attacks on abortion providers and clinics. that needs to be addressed with the same energy. we know that arson, bombings, assault, have increased exponentially. stockings have gone up 600% since 2020 against of those that are abortion providers. i condemn any violence and i absolutely do not believe anybody should be experiencing threats to their well-being and safety. that should apply equally across the board. everybody should be working just as hard to make sure that abortion providers and clinics also get the same protection. >> thank you, ms. harley. >> i condemn all violence. i note abortion is an act of violence against the most innocent and vulnerable human beings. >> thank you, professor. web -- >> i condemn violence and forced birth is an act of violence as well. there has been a 450% increase in blockades at clinics that provide abortions. there has been a 163% increase in the planting of hoax devices and a suspicious packages at clinics that provide abortion care. a 129% increase in invasions at clinics that provide abortion care and a 100 20% increase in assault and battery. we should keep the same energy across the board and protect everyone. >> i also condemn violence. violence should never be carried out on anyone. at any time. pregnancy centers, since the overturning, have the violence has been overwhelming that we have sustained. the amount of money we have had to spend to protect ourselves, just so we can offer free services to women, is unbelievable. >> doctor? >> thank you so much. i appreciate the average for the violence. my own family would -- appreciate violence -- would appreciate outrage. dr. david got murdered in 1993, dr. dog britain in 1994, james barrett murdered in 1994. murdered at 25 in 1994. leanne nichols, 38, murdered in 1990. dr. barnett stepien, 1998 in buffalo new york after returning home from a synagogue. hours after his wife forwarded the threat to the police. robert sanderson, an off-duty police officer at a clinic, murdered by eric rudolph in 1998. dr. george tiller in 2009, murdered in his own church would have appreciated your outrage as well. sen. cotton: do you condemn the violence by groups like jane's revenge? dr. mcnicholas: i absolutely condemn violence against everyone, including abortion providers. sen. cotton: thank you. >> senator klobuchar? sen. klobuchar: thank you senator durbin. thank you for that answer. that was, going through the names i think really reiterates to many people appear that we condemn violence, but, there have been a lot of people who have lost their lives simply by trying to guarantee women what were once their guaranteed rights under the constitution. now it is in our hands. for nearly 50 years roe v. wade protected a woman's right to make her own health care decisions, ensuring women, their families, and doctors were in charge of the most personal choices in their lives, not politicians. this ruling means not only will women receive different treatment under the law than men, but there will be a patchwork of laws across the country. look at what we are seeing now. louisiana passed a law that subjects abortion providers to criminal penalties. in missouri and bill was introduced that would allow private citizens to sue people who help women leave the state to get abortion care. mississippi's governor refused to rule out banning contraception. so, as senator durbin noted, our state, like illinois, is also an island in the heartland. it is a good place. i am proud of our state has stood up, in minnesota, for the reproductive rights of women. after the dobbs decision i met with a group of health care workers from planned parenthood in morehead minnesota and i talked to the head of the red river falls women's clinic in fargo, north dakota. she has resorted to a gofundme page to make sure that she can keep providing services in the upper midwest. in fact, she is moving her clinic to minnesota. all providers i have talked to have been resolute in their determination to serve the health care needs of women. i start with you, dr. bridges. because minnesota is surrounded by states with abortion restrictions, providers expect 10% to 25% more people coming to our state. can you talk about the strain a sudden increase on women seeking care has on patients and providers? dr. bridges: absolutely. i will invite the lieutenant governor strata to weigh in as well. after texas passed sb eight effectively ending abortion in the state after six weeks of pregnancy, before most people know they are pregnant. there was an incredible influx of patients from texas and clinics in the surrounding states, oklahoma and kansas. some clinics reported a 1000% increase in patients from texas after sba. some clinics in kansas provided information that 50% of their clients for now from texas. so, that makes it difficult for people from texas to access abortion care. now they have to travel hundreds of miles for abortion care. it also means -- makes it harder for residents of oklahoma and kansas to access care in their state. providers cannot meet demand. there are limits, right? roe v. wade was decided in 1999. i have seen that the supreme court can we can expect it to be reversed just as we thought roe v. wade wade reversed because of the membership of the court. >> i am concerned that private homes data could put providers and people seeking abortions at risk. it only costs $160 to buy a week's worth of data on people who visited planned parenthood. that's why senator baldwin and i partnered to urge the ftc to regulate data brokers selling data about people seeking abortion. the ftc issued a statement committing to fully forcing the law. in the wake of the dobbs decision, do you agree it is important to protect data privacy, particularly in states that have outlawed abortion? professorprofessor bridges: it's essential. our digital footprint can be used as incriminating evidence. >> one last thing, lieutenant governor. on states like illinois, minnesota, and the impact on these states? >> to your question regarding the protection of data and privacy issues, the patients coming to our state is top of mind in illinois. it's not just the patient. it's the providers that could potentially risk the same sort of criminalization. leaders are gathering to talk. we can continue to expand reproductive rights. again, everyone should be able to feel safe. >> vision governor, great respect for you. thank you. >> thank you, senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are talking about procedures that call but -- culminate in the termination of a baby's life. for those who have said the dimmest -- decision was undemocratic, nothing could be further from the truth. it was a victory for republican democracy. the court returned to the question of whetherthe court ree question of. this decision is not taken off the table. it belongs to the people. they can exercise what circumstances. they can exercise what circumstances. justice alito, my former boss, explains it well. he said "our decision returns the issue of abortion to those legislative bodies. it allows on both sides of the abortion issue. the process influencing the opinion. lobbying legislators, voting, and running for office. it seems to me that the lefties campaigns are went to great lengths to scare convincing them that. for the cause of saying that it is ok, in fact, protected by the constitution. to exterminate, whether those making these spur less arguments are simply afraid of american republican democracy, simply afraid of the american people, simply afraid that when able to make this decision on the wrong, freed from the judicial oligarchy that has reigned over this era, this area of the law for the last 49 years, that they will not make the same decision that the radical left would make. that seems to me to be the most plausible explanation for why they are so upset and calling it undemocratic. nothing could be further from the truth. it is important to note that this rain falls disproportionately on some communities. it falls on some races more than others. black babies are at greater risk of being aborted then white babies. a new york city health department report released four years ago found that between 2012 and 2016, when the study was conducted, black mothers aborted 136,426 babies while giving birth to only 118,127 babies. thousands, thousands of more black babies were aborted than born in new york city during that time. it should not come as a surprise, as you consider that planned parenthood's founder, margaret singer, was a big therapeutics. -- a big fan of eugenics and her plans were not anything anyone would want to defend today on that front. she wanted to "assist the race towards the elimination of the unfit." these are not laudable goals. ms. harley, these reports on the black women, the right at which black women in new york city are getting abortions are heartbreaking and breathtaking. i hope to see states enacting stronger protections for life including, among other things, laws prohibiting abortions based on the race, sex, or disability of the baby. i hope these laws protect all babies, including black babies. in your view, ms. harley, is race, sex, or disability a valid reason for aborting unborn baby? ms. harley: absolutely not. nobody should be discriminated against based on their race, sex, or genetic makeup. certainly, nobody should be killed because of any of these factors. these laws protect the most vulnerable citizens from fatal and lethal discrimination based on who they are or what they might look like. this is what roe v. wade has blocked states from doing. the people of the states enacting, voting for lawmakers who would enact good policies. roe v. wade was blocking it. now the power has been given back to the people of the state to choose life affirming, life protecting policies that they want in their communities. rep. lee: -- separately what ms. harley just said, was very legitimate. the doomsday calls from those on the left are ignoring common sense. they are ignoring what human instinct tells us about protecting the most vulnerable among us. members of the committee, including some attacking the dobbs decision once shared these views. as i wrap up my remarks, i submit for the record a copy of a letter you wrote on august 4, 1989. you said, among other things "i believe we should end abortion on demand and i continue to believe that the supreme court decision in roe v. wade should be reversed." "small stocks big money" -- >> senator lee and senator urman. sen. lee: lieutenant governor, i agree with you that it is a woman, not a bunch of politicians that should decide her bodily autonomy. as i listen to my colleagues who support the recent supreme court decision, they lose sight, in my view, intentionally. they lose sight of who should be making the decision about what to do with our own bodies. us or a bunch of politicians. professor bridges, you noted that justice alito chose 1868 as the historical basis for the decision. in overturning roe v. wade. i agree with you. what is so special about 1868? not only that, but the attitude of originalism, at the justices who take that approach go all the way back to our founding fathers. they pretend they know what our founding fathers meant. when they drafted the constitution. i use the word pretend, because who has would know? what our founding fathers meant? is there any reference to ar-15 rifles in our constitution? no. you noted this is an outcome based approach to our constitution and that is what justice alito applies. when the committee has a hearing on justices gorsuch, cavanaugh, coney barrett. of course, they said row was president. every decision of the supreme court is a precedent but the people that can overturn the president are the supreme court and they are busy doing so. i want to note, and i am sure you are familiar professor, with the decision that was made overturning a 40-year-old supreme court precedent that enabled public-sector unions to collect union fees. in that decision they very summarily overturned that decision thanks to the fact that justice gorsuch got on the court because when justice alito died and they had a previous decision called frederick it was a four to the minute justice gorsuch got on the court it was a five to four decision. that is what the supreme court is busy doing, overturning precedent. i do not know what will happen that protect other constitutional rights like what justice thomas signaled, the same-sex marriage protection that could be out the window with -- if the court applies to these kinds of cases a rational basis test rather than strict scrutiny. so, professor, do you share the concern i have about where the court will go with other decisions that have earlier been made? professor bridges: absolutely. i am very concerned about where the court will go. the logic of the dobbs decision, the method of constitutional interpretation the majority uses, that should frighten everyone who holds dear the rights necessary for people to live fully human lives with dignity in the country a burger fell versus hodges, the right to marry someone of the same sex. in 1868 no such right exists. lord three texas found a right to be free from criminal punishment for consensual sexual contact with an adult. such a right did not exist in 1868. griswold versus connecticut, skinner versus oklahoma. meyer versus nebraska. if i could go on and on. these rights that are important for marginalized people, vulnerable people need these rights. these rights were simply not contemplated by the people who drafted and ratified the constitution in 1789 and 1791, or, 1868. we should all be terrified. >> we have a radical group of very conservative justices that will be making further decisions like this. i have a question for dr. mcnicholas. you talked about the chaos created as a result of this decision. i have been talking with doctors in hawaii. hawaii was the first state in the union to decriminalize abortion before the roe decision. there is even a potential impact of what seemed to be doctors are taught in medical school. dnc is a procedure utilized for miscarriages. medical schools in states like texas no longer teach doctors how to do dnc because they may be accused of performing an abortion? "small stocks big money" -- >> yes. we will be creating an entire cohort of physicians unprepared to create -- to do procedures. the medication we use for medication abortion, the procedures are the same exact medicines and procedures we use for people experiencing pregnancy loss. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator ross. sen. blackburn: thank you mr. chairman. thank you, each of you, for taking the time to be here with us today. i really appreciate it. ms. hartley, i want to come to you first, if i may. the dobbs decision. i have been so interested to see the way different legal scholars have approached this. i have read that justice ginsburg waited on the failures of roe v. wade. noting, and i will quote from her. she said "it seemed to entirely remove the ball from the legislators court. justice alito had quoted dr. john hart ely's characterization that roe was "not constitutional law." if you look at this, how do you explain the flawed reasoning of roe and how dobbs corrected the flock? >> that's correct. legal scholars on the right and left have criticized roe v. wade's reasoning. justice ginsburg, a proponent of abortion as a policy matter, recognized that its reasoning was fundamentally flawed and predicted it would like to be overturned. if i can connect this to the discussion about the year 1868, the reason that is a touch point is because abortion advocates have insisted that the right to abortion somehow emanates out of the penumbras of nonexistent words in the due process clause of the 14th amendment. they sometimes say it may be in the fourth, fifth, ninth, or other amendments. it is not there. 1860 is a touch point because the due process argument is what the abortion advocates -- sen. blackburn: let's turn to the states in the best position to handle this. 44% wanted the state legislatures to set the abortion standards. only 31% wanted congress to do this. only 25% wanted judges to do this. why are the states in the best position to do this in a fair and equitable way? >> that's how people get their voice heard. sen. blackburn: 197340 six states completely protected the rights with extremely limited exceptions. roe overturned that. until recently, that is what the american people wanted. sen. blackburn: what advice would you give states looking at taking this up? >> this is an opportunity, finally, that states have had the shackles removed from roe's judicial power grab. it's an opportunity for the people to have a voice through elected lawmakers to enact policies that support the dignity of women, that protect unborn life, that protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens, and protect the integrity of the medical profession to remove this barbaric procedure that destroys families, communities, and has ended the life of more than 60 million babies. >> i have told two women on all sides of the issue. i find it so interesting that once they realize that much of what they have heard in the mainstream media about there being a federal abortion ban is incorrect. they realize this goes to the state. that changes the nature of this conversation. ms. matt ski, i want to come to you for a moment. planned parenthood gets about $.5 billion a year. they can use that to fund clinic work and provide health care. what i have heard from many of the clinics in tennessee is that planned parenthood does not provide the services that they need for maternal care. the services that they need post pregnancy. talk with me a little bit about the services. what people are asking for. i thought this would be interesting to us as a committee. when we talk about all of this money planned parenthood gets. then, they do not meet the needs for women that are pregnant. and that do want to carry the baby to term and have the baby. when they come to you, what services are they asking for that planned parenthood does not provide? >> thank you for asking that question. it's vitally important for everyone here to recognize the fact that as the director of the alternative pregnancy center it's my responsibility to go out and raise, by myself, nongovernment funds, over 1.5 billion dollars, every year. i have to figure out where $1.5 million will come from. so, we can provide free services to women facing unplanned pregnancies. ironically, where we are at in sacramento, california, planned parenthood actually refers patients to us. once a woman walks in, this has happened countless times in the last multiple months, if they do not choose abortion, they are referred to alternative pregnancy center to be cared for. alternative pregnancy center offers all of the support they need, medical, as well as material support. so, the fact that planned parenthood sees the value of who we are and what we offer to women, i think is important for everyone here to understand. sen. blackburn: mr. chairman, as we look at this issue, this is something we would want to look at. why they do not offer that full array of health care services for women. why are they choosing to make that referral to an agency to receive those full services, when they are receiving hundreds of millions and billions of dollars? thank you. i yelled my time. >> thank you, senator blackburn. senator whitehouse? sen. whitehouse: thank you for the witnesses for being here. there has been talked about the environment in which the justices who wrote the dobbs decision have had to operate since the decision. i wanted to flag, in the general category of protest behavior, the experience i had with clinics in rhode island in the 1990's when i was u.s. attorney in rhode island. i flag it in part because during justice brown's hearing a rest -- a witness is forward to -- a witness was going forward to print those -- propose the narrative that the engagement between protesters and those seeking services at clinics are done in a spirit of peaceful and loving engagement. i lived a very different experience that -- and then that in rhode island and massachusetts. the environment outside of our planned parenthood clinic in providence was so hostile that we were well aware of it in law enforcement. planned parenthood had had to figure out ways to have people escort women coming for services into their premises through extremely hostile and abusive crowds. it reached a very bloody culmination in december, 1994 when a clinic protester, we think the protesters went back and forth between massachusetts and rhode island pretty often. a clinic protester went into a clinic in massachusetts and murdered the receptionist and it shot up the place, wounding others, then, moved onto another clinic outside of boston and murdered an employee and shot others. then, disappeared. we did not know where they were going. i got the news right away. i called up the u.s. marshals. i said, nobody knows where this guy is, right? they said, nobody knows where this guy is. because we knew of all of the threats and abusive behavior that was happening outside of the planned parenthood clinic in providence, i said, well, because we do not know where he is, we could be next. we have to get over there now. he and i went. it was a cold december day. we just stood outside of the planned parenthood clinic. the marshals and fbi agent's ended up joining us. then providence police took over security. as it happened, the shooter drove right by. they went on. loving engagement is not consistent with what i saw with my own eyes and what the people in boston had to deal with. and what the people in boston had to deal with. whether there are occasions where apart from the wishes of the mob, there are circumstances where a doctor in a pregnancy will make a decision or recommendation for a patient that an abortion is now medically necessary. it is the independent medical conclusion of the doctor. doctors have to make hard decisions all the time. that the best decision is you have to go ahead with the procedure to save the mother's like or -- life or for the sake of their children or whatever. is that a thing that happens in real life? dr. mcdade gillis -- dr. mcnicholas: i want to state the names of the two women you mentioned you were murdered. shannon was 25 and leanne nichols was 38. absolutely every day we see nancy convocations that put people's lives at risk and its imperative physicians have every tool there disposal to make recommendations. i say recommendations intentionally. we never tell people what they have to do. we tell them what the risk is and potential complications. sen. whitehouse: dobbs, compounded by anti-abortion laws and state legislatures, what impact is that having on doctors ability to make those decisions and provide the services to women when medically necessary? >> in addition to the chief medical officer for planned parenthood i am a member of the college of obstetricians and gynecologists. our members are afraid to make decisions that are the best health care decisions for people. they are afraid of how long they have to wait for people to get sick enough to take care of them. health conditions evolved sometimes minute to minute, sometimes day-to-day, sometimes it takes weeks. but the truth is if we are setting up a system by which we force people to sustain preventable morbidity and mortality we are totally leaving an entire population of people behind. we are telling women that not only are they not allowed the decision to control their own body, but, now, we will not allow you to control your own body and make decisions when it means you could potentially be leaving the three children you have behind when you die from delayed care. it's disgraceful. it happens everything ok. -- every single day. we are hearing every day from people on the ground. i tell my 12-year-old every day that intent and impact are different. whatever the intent of overturning roe is, the impact is people are being harmed. >> sen. cruz:. sen. cruz: thank you, mr. chairman. the supreme court decision in dobbs was a victory for democracy in america. abortion is an issue on which of the american people have strong and passionate fears and disagree. as of the witnesses here at this hearing demonstrate. the disagreements have been long-standing. the way our constitution operates, typically, on issues in which there is a sharp disagreement, it is the democratic process that resolves the disagreement. when the supreme court decided roe v. wade in 1973, seven unelected judges said to the american people, your views do not matter. your desire to protect innocent life does not matter. we know better than you. we are going to prevent you from making decisions about protecting life. the consequence of that has been five decades of deep political division, because, the democratic process was prevented from operating. now, basics-three majority of the supreme court has overturned that decision. questions of abortion will return to the unelected of government. the democratic process will be allowed to operate. in bright blue states, tragically, we will continue to see unlimited abortion on demand. in red states we will see some meaningful restrictions on abortions. those restrictions will vary state by state. depending on the values and mores of their citizens. that is how our constitution was meant to operate. if you disagree with the abortion laws in your state, you have an outlet to express that disagreement. you have an outlet to be involved in the political process. you have an outlet to advocate for what you believe laws should be. you are not forced to live under the rule of unelected judges operating as philosopher kings and decreeing the roles for three-headed 30 million americans. -- 330 million americans. i believe abortion is a tragedy. the over 60 million unborn children who have never breathed air, never lived, never danced, never hugged, never loved. our country is far poorer for the millions of african-american children who never had a chance to live and contribute to our country. unfortunately, one of the consequences of the court taking this out of the democratic process is today's modern democratic party has become radicalized on abortion. the case planned parenthood versus casey, a lot of people do not know, the kc in question was governor bob casey, a democrat that was pro-life. today's democratic party has said that if you are pro-life, get out. your views are not welcome in our party. part of the reason that democrats in this hearing are painting the dobbs decision in such apocalyptic terms is they know that their view of abortion, that is unlimited abortion on demand up to the moment of birth, partial-birth abortion with government funding, no parental notification, no printer consent, is supported by a tiny minority of americans. they know that voters when given a chance do not support that radical view. there was a time when democrats used to say the same thing. bill clinton said he wanted to see abortion safe, legal, and rare. today's democratic party wants as much abortion as possible. i will tell you this. when roe v. wade was decided, one democrat who spoke up against it was a fellow named joseph robinette biden who said in 1974 "i don't like that it -- the supreme court decision on abortion. i think it went too far." ok, that was a long time ago. 15 years ago. tim russert says, you supported the ban on late-term abortions. biden said i did, and i do. that was 15 years ago. just weeks ago, the democrats in this body voted to strike down every restriction on abortion across the country including bans on partial borscht -- partial-birth abortion and every single democrat but one voted on it. you may say joe biden was out of step. there is someone else with similar views. the chairman of this committee. in a june 1980 three letter the chairman wrote "i have clearly studied the issue of abortion in depth." the eagleton amendment states clearly that the right to abortion is not guaranteed by the u.s. constitution. the effect of the amendment will be to return us to the legal environment that existed before roe v. wade in 1973 signed richard j durbin member of congress. that view continued in august 1989. chair ben durbin wrote again -- chairman durbin wrote again "i believe we should end abortion on demand. at every opportunity i have translated this belief into votes in the house of representatives. i continue to believe that the supreme court's decision in roe v. wade should be reversed." that was the view of a lot of democrats not long ago. today's democratic party is afraid of the voters on this issue. what the supreme court has done is returned this deeply press know, deeply important, deeply contentious issue to the voters. to lead the american people decide. that is democracy. all of us should be happy about that. sen. durbin: thank you senator cruz, senator booker? sen. booker: thank you mr. chairman and all of the women who have testify. i know it is a sacrifice to come for such an important day. this hardly, can i -- ms. harley can i ask you a quick question, yes or no. if congress were to pass a national abortion ban, that be something you would support? ms. harley: i think our laws should protect all human life, yes. sen. booker:. there has been a lot said by my colleagues about, i seem to imply that allowing women to have access to safe abortion care is somehow racist against african-americans. would you take a brief moment to address that, for me? >> thank you senator, for that question. first, as we look at the disproportionate impact that abortion bands and restrictions have on black women in particular and the harm caused, it's cruel to deny that access to abortion is actually liberating for black women. to be able to have bodily autonomy and the ability to decide what is best for their bodies, their lives, and their futures. i am the mother of four daughters. three of whom are adults. i had to have a painful conversation with them first upon the leaked decision and then with the dobbs ruling about how they could have fewer rights than their mother had. they should be able to decide for themselves. to make a decision. there is a conversation about maternal mortality rates, infant mortality rates, related to racial disparities. so, to talk about what happens with children and recognizing that after a child is born, they do not have access to resources, they are not given what is needed to address the systemic racism that they will experience throughout their lives, to make sure there is no help given to these black and brown families across our country in the wake of these bands and restrictions. it's contradictory to so much of what we have heard today. this is not about helping. this will only harm and cause immeasurable suffering. sen. durbin:. dr. bridges and a dr. mcnichols, to that point, i have been looking at data and seeing that state to provide great access to contraception, free access to contraception, actually lower rates of unwanted pregnancies. in colorado, they lower rates of abortion by empowering women and low income women in particular. in the dissent from the dobbs case, they pointed out what to me was absurd. the reality of many of the states moving to create the most restrictive bans on abortion are the states not doing the things that are obvious to lower the rates of maternal death, like expanding medicaid. so, this argument that they value life are not providing access to contraception, by not expanding medicaid, their states have some of the worst records for women dying and for -- of pregnancy-related causes. that seems like rank hypocrisy to me. especially as it affects african-american women who die three times more. i was wondering if you may become a dr. nichols, dr. bridges, code, as cogently as possible in the time i have left, just talk about how these bands in the name of life are actually causing so much more death in communities, especially for the most vulnerable women. website will take 30 seconds and pass it to you. -- >> i will take 30 seconds and pass it to you. the states passing the most restrictive laws around abortion are the states preventing from voting. senator lee and senator cruz have talked about the dobbs decision returning it to the elective representatives of states where people can battle in the arenas of democracy. these states are stopping people from voting. texas has the most restrictive voting laws on the books. texas sba does not represent the will of the majority of texas. it represents the will of the majority of texans able to vote. for this to be a democracy we have to protect voting rights. i leave it to everyone in this room as well as congress to protect voting rights so we can be a real democracy. >> it has been well represented here that maternal mortality is the highest in states banning abortion and preventing access to things like medicaid. i will add one more thing. as a physician who cares for many black women, at the end of the day i trust that lack women know what they want and need for their own health care. sen. durbin: senator cornyn. sen. cornyn: professor bridges, you in your testimonies talked about the prevalence of abortion . the percentage of black babies that are aborted as opposed to non-black babies. i think you said three or four times more black babies than non-black babies are aborted. you also talk about systemic racism. do you see any systemic racism associated with the prevalence of abortion for black babies as opposed to nonblack babies? professor bridges: absolutely. higher rates of unintended pregnancy lead to higher rates of abortion among bug people. that's a result of systemic racism. -- among black people. that's a result of systemic racism. structural racism is the systems that have made it so black people disproportionately bear the burdens in this country. it denies them what they need to live humane lives like food, shelter, health care. sen. cornyn: you believe there ought to be more like babies aborted, is that right? professor bridges: we should create lives where people live with dignity and humanity. i believe, i trust, i love black people with the capacity for pregnancy. they have agency. have intelligence. they know what is best for themselves. i would love to create conditions where they can live lives filled with dignity and humanity. sen. cornyn: using a baby delivered alive has value? professor bridges: yes. sen. cornyn: you think that i -- a baby not yet born has value? effexor bridges: i believe -- professor bridges: i believe a person with a capacity for pregnancy has -- sen. cornyn: i am talking about the baby. professor bridges i am talking about the person with the capacity for pregnancy. sen. cornyn: do you think that the day before the mother delivers, the baby has value? professor bridges i think the person with the capacity for pregnancy has value and should control what happens to their lives. sen. cornyn: you refused to answer the question. the declaration of independence talked about certain unalienable rights. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. when do you think that right to life attaches? >> thank you. life is a human right. when i answered senator booker's question earlier, i think our laws should protect all human life. i think i was focusing on the hard part i didn't mean to suggest it's a matter of congressional authority to do -- to enact the law you described. i do think that the american people understand that you have no rights if you don't have the right to life. that's a principle our nation was founded upon. and every human being from its earliest existence has its own d.n.a. and has a future. ms. harle: if we don't extinguish it. has a future. it's a human right. it's the values and worries that senator cruz was speaking of that goes back to the founding of our nation even at common law all the way up until 1973 when those life affirming laws in 46 states were turned on their heads by the supreme court. i believe that's what the american people believe. life is a human right. senator cornyn: governor stratton, as i listen to your testimony, it seems to me that you are advocating for abortion at any time for any reason at any point during a woman's pregnancy. is that correct? ms. stratton: what i'm advocating for is for everyone to have the right to determine what's best for their life, their body -- senator cornyn: any point in their pregnancy. ms. stratton: i'm advocating for everyone to have the right to make the personal decision about what's best for their life, their body, and their future. everyone should have that right. senator cornyn: do you not understand my question? my question is are you advocating there is a right to abortion at any time for any reason at any point during a pregnancy? ms. stratton: i'm not sure if you understand my answer, but what i'm saying -- senator cornyn: i understand you are not answering the question. what amazes me is the advocacy for unlimited abortion rights where there is zero value placed object an -- on an unborn child. i think senator cruz pointed out abortion is a very emotional and divisive issue in our society. one reason we haven't had conversations like this is because the supreme court has said you can't talk about it because it's out of bounds. it's in the constitution. as opposed to being decided in a forum -- legislative forum like the states. but what i don't understand is the argument that a unborn child has zero value the day before it's delivered but then has value the day after it's important. born. miss matzke, can you explain that? ms. matzke: thank you. i actually can. as a matter of fact here in california there is a law that's about to be passed call a.b.2223, and this law basically will allow as a woman is the midst of a chemical abortion and she delivers a baby alive on the floor at any stage of pregnancy or in a hospital that baby, if this law is passed, has the ability to be born alive and left to die. no matter what a baby in the womb or outside of the womb has value. and we are not just talking about the value of a life in the womb right now. we are also talking about the value of a life in california after it is born and allowing it to die. up to 28 days after birth. senator cornyn: thank you. >> as we heard today in testimony both from my colleagues and from the panel, the conservative activist majority on the supreme court abandoned decades of precedent, protecting the rights of women to choose their reproductive health course. and it has immediate consequences for the autonomy and health of millions and millions of women in this country. i'm concerned that the restrictions that we have seen in dobbs will further exacerbate inequalities and access to health care in this country. senator coons: some of the states, as senator booker observed, that are rushing to restrict this right have among the miest maternal rights in this country. i'm grateful president biden took steps to mitigate the impacts of the court's policy decision. these topics are intensely emotional and divisive and are challenging for us to work through in an appropriate, safe, constructive way in the democratic process. and they are and should be the focus of discussion, debate, and action here and in the months ahead. i'm going to focus my questions today on the radical legal implications of this activist court's decision in dobbs and the very real human consequences and impact. weeks ago, generations of women and girls in our country understood the constitution protected them against being forced to bear children against their will. today those same women and girls have been told that their right to make their own decisions about reproductive health is not a right of freedom guaranteed under our laws and depending where they live, that the state may force them to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth. if i might, professor bridges, the conservative history and tradition analysis as i understand it seems to fundamentally shortchange the rights of women and other groups of people, racial, religious minorities who have no power in the democratic process at the relevant time when key decisions were made, and thus is fundamentally flawed. i would be interested in your brief comments on what's the danger of the justice's reliance on selective historical analyses to roll back a fundamental and protected constitutional right? and if this majority can engage in a moment of activism to reverse precedent that guarantees protections for women's bodily autonomy, what other fundamental rights might reasonably be imagined to be at risk? professor bridges: looking to the nation's history, whether that date is 1787 when the constitution was ratified, 1789 when the bill of rights was ratified, or 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified, is to look at periods. nation's history in which marginalized populations today were completely erased. i can talk about the lgbtq community. they were not contemplated by framers, those who ratified the constitution. their ability to live lives that have dignity, their ability to love though had he love -- they love and marry who they marry, wasn't contemplated by those folks who ratified the constitution. people of color, immigrants, people with disabilities, people with the capacity for pregnancy. all of those groups were not thought of and their interests were not considered during that moment in the nation's history. i can tell you the litany of case that is we ought to be a*r wary about being reversed. oberger felled vs. hodges, lawrence vs. texas, loving vs. virginia. senator coons: what's the common thread among those cases. some persons may not know as much as you do about the speufbgs about -- specifics about the -- professor bridges: the court framed these cases to link -- that links them is using the liberty term of the due process clause to recognize that people need the capacity to make decision abouts their personal lives. about whether they create a family. about how they raise their family. about decisions regarding love and sex and marriage and so to pull roe out of that thread of cases that have all recognized the right to privacy and liberty interest is to create chaos and create uncertainty with regard to those case that is came after and -- cases that came after. lawrence vs. texas protecting same section marriage as well as the case that is came before. senator coons: that's an insightful comment how much else is at risk here and why this impact fundamentally rights that many of us, millions of us come to rely on to make decision abouts our own life, families, who we love, how we love and when and how we choose to have children. lieutenant governor if i might i'm almost out of time. nothing in the dobbs opinion blocks states from subjecting abortion providers, women, and girls, and others seeking abortion care and trying to help them access abortion care to criminal penalties, is that correct? there is nothing in the dobbs decision that blocks dates from imposing criminal penalties for seeking abortion care. do you expect the result this decision will have a whole series of efforts at the state level that will result in contentious litigation, criminal penalties, of folks simply trying to help family members access apwors care? ms. stratton: i think we are in the midst of seeing the kind of chaos that has been created by this decision and what is happening all across the country where we are seeing different decisions, legislation that's been both proposed and passed. we have seen trigger laws, we have seen people seeking to travel from state-to-state and cross state lines. it is chaotic and it is something that is causing harm and causes insurmountable challenges, quite frankly, for those who are trying to figure out what's possible. we need to make sure that people have the right to make decisions about what's best for them with their physician, not from politicians. that's exactly what has been opened up with this decision. senator coons: thank you to all our witnesses. mr. chairman.tor hawley. senator hawley: thanks to all the witnesses for being here. before -- i want to visit with you, miss mats i ask. professor bridges you used a phrase, you referred to people with the capacity for pregnancy. would that be women? professor bridges: many women, since women have the capacity for women. many women do not have the capacity for women. there are also transmen capable of pregnancy and nonbinary people. senator hawley: this isn't a women's rights issue -- professor bridges: we can recognize this impacts women. recognizing it impacts other groups. senator hawley: your view is this right is about what? professor bridges: i want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic. and it opens up transpeople to violence -- senator hawley: you're saying i'm opening up to violence -- professor bridges: i want to note one out of five transgender persons have attempted suicide. so i think it's -- senator hawley: because of my line of questioning? professor bridges: denying transpeople exist and pretending not to know they exist -- senator haw hro*pb: i'm denying -- professor bridges: do you believe men can get preg tphapb? senator hawley: you are denying transpeople exist. senator hawley: is this how you run your classroom. are students allowed to question you. are they treated like this? opening up people to violence -- professor bridges: we have a good time in my class. you might learn a lot. senator hawley: i would learn a lot. extraordinary. miss matzke, let me ask you something. you provide health care to women free of charge, right? is that right? ms. matzke: absolutely. senator hawley you have licensed medical professionals. ms. matzke: sthaerbg. senator hawley: what are some of the resources you provide for woman who come to you in the time of need? you talk about your written testimony. give us a sense of it. ms. matzke: we have three ob-gyn doctors. five register nursesser nurse practitioners, fully pwot miss, medical assistants. we provide prenatal care, ob-gyn care. pregnancy tests, ultrasounds. breast examines. we provide a wide range of medical services, yes. senator hawley: what do you think about the d.c. politicians now saying that your clinic and the other 3,000 pregnancy care centers around the country are fake medical clinics. for instance, senator warren has said it's now more important than ever to crack down on so-called crisis pregnancy centers that mislead and deceive patients. senator menendez, crisis pregnancy centers jeopardize women's health and well-being, all while elevating unproven theories about birth control. senator warner wrote to google asking them to censor search results for care certainties like yours saying, directing women to fake clinics that traffic in misinformation is dangerous to women's health and undermines the integrity of google's search results. do you run a fake clinic? is that what's happening here? you don't provide medical care to actual women? ms. matzke: we absolutely do not run a fake clinic. we have a full medical staff. like i said many of our medical professionals have experienced abortion for themselves. including our ob-gyn doctor who used to perform abortions. our entire medical staff is there for women whether they choose abortion and walk out the door or whether they choose life for their baby and we support them for years after that. senator hawley: do you think there alt to be an ideological toeft get medical care in this country? should we say you have to atkre with the d.c. democrats' ideology otherwise you can't get medical care or maybe for you and the physicians who work at your pregnancy care center or thousands of others across the country should we impose a test on them and say you have to agree with the d.c. democrats on abortion you can't provide medical care to women. should we do that? ms. matzke: absolutely not. senator hawley: in my few remaining seconds, ms. harle, the dobbs decision, as i understand it, i read it a number of times, it gives to voters the decision as to what laws should be pertaining to life and abortion in all 50 states and other jurisdictions around the country. i'm curious, do you know what percentage of voters in this country support the d.c. democrats' position they want to impose on the entire country, a one-size-fits-all rule, do you know what percentage of voters support their position which is also the same position taken by north korea and china, other notable violators of human rights? do you know what percentage it is? ms. matzke: i know that nearly 90% of americans oppose abortion in the third try midwesters, the number that would -- trimester, the number up to birth has to be minuscule. senator hawley: based on the most recent harvard poll, less than 10% of voters say they would support abortion into the final month of pregnancy. yet that is the law that the d.c. politicians want to impose on every voter in america to take this away from the people, take it awhich my state and the other states and voters in the states but impose this law, uniformly, that is it not supported by 90% of the american people. talk about anti-democratic. at the same time they want to shut down 3,000 pregnancy care centers all around this country. that's radical. thank you for being here. chair durbin: senator padilla. senator padilla: thank you, mr. chair. thank you all for your participation here today. last friday president biden signed a crucial executive order seeking to protect access to reproductive health care nationwide. while i areciate the president's efforts and the importance his administration has placed on this issue, as we discussed here the hearing today people of color, economically disadvantaged families, immigrants, and members of tribal communities have faced significant barriers to receiving adequate health care even before roe was overturned. as those barriers will only further increase now. in a country where the black maternal mortality rate is triple that of white women, we should not be forcing anyone to carry a pregnancy to term that they wish to terminate for a health or other reasons, period. if we are serious about protecting lives in america, mothers across the country have every medical resource available. anything less is simply unacceptable. my first question is for professor bridges. since you are from my home state of california. in your testimony you mentioned how the harshest effects of dobbs will fall on black people. black women, black families. can you describe how this decision will impact the maternal mortality rate for black women. professor bridges: absolutely. as you have already noted black women with the capacity for pregnancy have a maternal mortality rate that's three to four times the rate of their white counterparts. maternal morbidity, severe morbidity, our rates are twice that of our white counterparts. we have to undergo a lifesaving intervention like mechanical ventilation, like a his tore wreck tommy -- his tore wreck tommy to believe our lives during pregnancy, childbirth. removing abortion access, the ability to safely terminate a pregnancy. compels birth which is more dangerous for black people. this is not inevitable. black people don't have a gene that causes us to die. these are social causes of this disparities of mortality and morbidity. we as a society have not invested the resource that is can make pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum period safe for black people. senator padilla: question for lieutenant governor stratton. illinois has taken steps to ensure that abortion remains legal for all. regardless of their background. can you elaborate a little bit on how the elimination of abortion restrictions is essential in achieving reproductive as well as economic and racial justice? ms. stratton: thank you, senator, for that question. first and foremost in addition to the conversations that we have been having about maternal mortality and the disproportionate impact on black women in particular, i want to talk about some of the other long-lasting restriction that is we will see -- restrictions that we will see from the long lasting impacts of restrictions or bans to abortion. this includes an increased risk of intimate partner violence. we know that for pregnant people, intimate partner violence and in fact it's one of the leading causes of homicide for -- homicide is one of the leading causes of death for those -- preg tphapb women -- pregnant women. we know it will increase health problems regardless of not just maternal mortality but other health issues that can exist far beyond that point of giving birth. as well as the financial and economic risks, the strain. increased evictions. increased poverty. living in long-term poverty. being in debt. i am a mother to four daughters and i can tell you or anybody who is a parent, raising a child is expensive. so to talk about forcing someone to become a parent and give birth and to carry out a pregnancy to term when that is not what that person wants, that as been stated before by professor bridges is a form of violence. so people should be able to choose what's best for themselves. politicians are not health care professionals. we should be able to have that bodily autonomy to decide not just what's best for our bodies but our futures. maybe it's not the right time to start a family. we should be able to decide that for ourselves as it has been for close to the last 50 years. senator padilla: i'll keep my final question if that's ok. one final question. recognizing the ma majority opinion justice alito wrote america need not worry about the broader implications of the right wing majority's decision to overturn roe is limited to this. yet his concurrence to justice alito's opinion, justice thomas makes it clear that those other rights are not actually secure. and has invited the supreme court to take up cases to revisit other areas of what we had believed to be settled law. professor bridges, does the reasoning in justice alito's position striking down roe actually -- is it possible or likely it could be applied to other areas of settled law that could go backwards on access to contraception, rights pertains to marriage, intimate relation, and other fundamental rights? professor bridges: absolutely. the court's protestations it is not touching those cases rings very hollow. the logic of the decision, the methodology of constitutional interpretation leave all of those decisions that justice thomas himself highlighted open to revisiting and reversal. senator padilla: thank you. chair durbin: start ossoff. senator ossoff: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to our panelists. thank you for your testimony and your presence today. i believe i may be concluding this hearing. i would like to focus these few minutes if i might on the real world impact on the consequences for women's health, women's lives, women's risk of death or grievous injury. of laws such as the one that we have on the books, not yet enforced, but perhaps soon h.b.-41 in georgia. which bans abortions beginning at six weeks before many women even know they are pregnant. with very limited exceptions. and in other states where even more draconian and extreme bans on abortion are on the books just waiting to be enforced as this decision and its implications make their way through the courts, dr. mcnicholas, based upon your experience, when a state government steps in and decides it will regulate pregnancy and forbid a woman in consultation with her doctor from making the personal choice about her pregnancy as early as six weeks in pregnancy, what are the implications for women's health? dr. mcnicholas: thank you for raising the issue. i want to recognize you are probably closest to the issue with some personal experience. your wife being an ob-gyn. certainly you have heard some of the stories already. the truth is pregnancy is complicated. and it can become life threatening at any moment. i'm going to go radical here and say i have heard lots of talk about whether this should be decided at the state level or at the federal level. but i'm going to go bold and say it should be considered in the medical world. this is a health care issue. this isn't a legal issue or it shouldn't be decided by state representatives or federal representatives, it should be decided by a patient and their family. they are the only person who can know whether it is appropriate to start a family or to expand their family. i have had so many examples over my lifetime and my career of just how complicated pregnancy can get and just how quickly somebody can go from completely healthy to on the verge of death. pregnancy is no joke. as we see more and more states deny access to this lifesaving care, we will see more people harmed. we are already seeing that. in the wake of texas and oklahoma's bans, we saw an increase of more than 120% from people outside of our area. all this talk about abortion later in pregnancy i'm going to till that the only relevant fact about abortion later in pregnancy right now is these bans will push people to later in pregnancy when they are having their abortions. it will not be because of the work that i do that people get abortion later in pregnancy, it will be because of all these people who support bans. that is why people will have abortion later in pregnancy. senator ossoff: i would like to continue, doctor, with the discussion of impacts on the practice of medicine. these are extraordinarily complex medical cases. dr. mcnicholas: absolutely. particularly for folks who are experiencing either worsening chronic medical conditions, or new conditions related to pregnancy specifically. it is so imperative that physicians, their entire care team, which include object steu preurb-and-s -- obstetricians and pediatricians that they have every single tool available so they can present patients with all their options to preserve their health. as i think about the phone calls i'm getting from physicians across the state of missouri, in my role, again, as an acog leadership, what i'm hearing people say is my hospital sent me a policy that says i have to wait until their blood count drops or their sraoeutals are unstable before i can take them. i have to wait until it's clear they are so sick that their infection is so bad that they now require intensive care. these are completely preventible occurrences in a person's life that not only impacts that pregnancy but every pregnancy that potentially follows. we are talking about people leaving families. if and when these people are dying from delayed care, they are leaving behind kids. they are leaving behind families. there is some real tragic impact that we are going to see in the coming days, weeks, and months. senator ossoff: in sum, doctor, i might ask your opinion, who are the people in the world best qualified to determine when someone's life's at risk, when someone's health is at risk, and what health care someone needs? dr. mcnicholas: well, about 16 years of education and also of years of practicing, sitting at the bedside with patients, and learning from my colleagues in different specialties, physicians, and health care providers are the ones who are best prepared to decide. the truth is that's why we have seen in recent days more than 75 professional medical organizations signed on to a statement detesting this decision. we are not talking just ob-gyn's. rule tomorrow gist, oncologists, psychiatrists, people who may peripherally touch abortion care but recognize how dangerous it is that physicians are now being told that it isn't their clinical expertise that should guide the health care they provide. that it is actually the attorney general or a lawyer's opinion about whether that is sick enough. it's tragic and it will put people at harm. senator ossoff: i yield back. chair durbin: we are joined by senator blumenthal who is recovering from covid. i hope he's with us. dick, are you there? senator blumenthal: i'm with you, mr. chairman. and hope you can hear me and that the witnesses can hear me. i want to begin by thanking every one of them for being with us today. i apologize that i'm with you remotely. this hearing has been enlightening. i want to just begin by saying that in the last few weeks i traveled around the state of connecticut to clinics, visiting providers in waterbury, new haven, new london, hartford, as much as i have felt their anguish and anger, their fear about the future, i'm also impressed by their resilience and their resolve to continue providing these essential health care services. connecticut, fortunately, decades ago enacted a law that enshrines roe v. wade, i helped to lead that effort in the 1990's, and consequently connecticut has those rights. now we face at the federal level the same challenge and i'm helping to lead the effort on the women's health protection act which would incorporate roe v. wade into our statute. just say bluntly any senator, any person who says they are in favor of choice should be in favor of this act. senators who say they are pro-choice should vote in favor of the women's health protection act. unfortunately no republican voted in favor of it the last time we had a vote just months ago. that is truly one of the ways to protect reproductive rights. we also have other legislation pending, such as senator hirono's bill, privacy of medical records, the house will be voting this week on some of those. in the meantime i commend president biden for moving forward with protection and urge, again, that he declare a national emergency. we truly face an emergency every bit as dire as the opioid epidemic and covid crisis, which had prompted declarations of emergency in the past. i urge that president biden, as we said in a letter recently, declare that emergency. just very bluntly i was so impressed by illinois lieutenant governor's testimony that we face a future raoeuf with needless death -- raoeuf -- rife with needless death. the fact is that dobbs is a death sentence for many women around our country. and they will come to states like connecticut, which has moved forward in a path here with the reproductive freedom defense act, it provides protections unparalleled, as far as i know, among any state so far in the country, although a number have enacted roe protections such as illinois and delaware and others, either by statute or executive order. connecticut has gone further by creating rights of action for individuals who are pursued by bounty hunters. it said in effect it will not cooperate with extradition attempts or other kinds of criminal enforcement attempts by texas or oklahoma or other states that have laws. and actually it will be probably about 26 of them. here's my question to lieutenant governor stratton. states like connecticut and illinois face an impending surge of women seeking their right, health care right, reproductive right, human rights in our states. what we face sun precedented costs to our health care system, to the clinics, what would you recommend, and i understand resources may be a part of it, that the federal government do to help those states that face this impending crisis? ms. stratton: thank you, senator, for that question. let me begin by saying that i hope you are well and on the road to recovery. a full and complete recovery. this administration, the biden-harris administration should explore all of the available tools at its disposal to the broadest extent they can under the law to protect access to abortion. this administration must also challenge the roe decision through the department of justice guidance and protections, and through as much administrative action as possible. as you mentioned, senator, this is a national health crisis. it is not going to work. we have seen the chaos that has happened and it's not going to work with everyone doing their own thing. people will die. and that is just the fact. and we are seeing that already. we know that the action of this administration cannot be unilateral. so i thank you for your leadership on the women's health protection act. we need to make sure that the administration works with congress to pass additional abortion protections and sign, get the women's health protection act passed and signed into law, codifying a right to reproductive freedom. eliminate the hyde amendment restrictions because we know that that also prevents people from getting access to care. and passing and signing into law the each act to make sure health insurance will cover through federal funds health coverage will be available. and then, of course, each of these laws must be implemented. so it is, again, a call to make sure that everything is done. as i mentioned in my remarks which you have, my opening remarks, we have also talked about creating some sort of hub so that there can be some sort of coordination with -- among states to make sure that women, that people, americans are getting the health care that they deserve and need. senator blumenthal: thanks for that answer, governor. in the couple moments i have left let me emphasize that we need a kind of reproductive rights or health care triage right now facing tremendous burden that states like illinois and connecticut, which provide a kind of safe harbor, will face going forward with our providers and clinics. every one of the measures you just mentioned and more need to be explored. particularly public health emergency declaration which would enable more resources under medicare, medicaid be provided because resources will be so very important. i thank you for your leadership. i believe that women who are residents of safe harbor states like connecticut will be assured by the resolve of our governor and our legislature that they will stay true to course. but we must prepare to provide this essential right to women around the country who will come to our state and make sure that we have the resources. thank you so much, mr. chairman. chair durbin: thank you, senator blue wrepb tall. no other members are seeking recognition. if you'll bear with me for point of personal privilege just a few moments. the letters which were displayed by senator cruz and senator lee are not new. i have seen them over and over again. they are 30 and 40 years old. it's true that my position on this subject did change. but it might be of interest to you why it changed. when i was a member of the house of representatives there was an offer to send money to planned parenthood for family planning and birth control. could not be used for abortion procedures. in my mind that was sensible. family planning and birth control gives to a woman and a family an option to control and plan their pregnancies. isn't that what we want? unplanned pregnancies are what lead us many times to an abortion decision. i voted for this family planning and birth control and the pro-life group said that's t we are never going to support you again. you have broken with us. then i started looking at the issue thinking if they can't even buy birth control how can this be a sensible approach? i sat down. i know exactly where i was. in quincy, illinois, at a home for young people who were in trouble in their teens. sat down with two young women who were about to turn 18. one a vicktism of incest. one of rape. they told me their stories. i didn't ask them to. but they wanted it tell me. i left that meeting with an understanding that i never had before. about the complexity of the decision behind the abortion procedure many times. some people think it's just a simple thing i don't want to be bothered. i think it's much more serious in most instances. i thought to myself as an individual member of congress are you ready to pass a law that applies to every woman in america? no. it really has to be her decision. we can regulate it as we should. but at that point i made my break. i stood for election in the house and the senate many times since then. i have seen these letters before. i'm surely see them again. i thank you for being here. with the dobbs decision young americans have been thrust into a world in which they do have few irrights than their parents and grandparents -- fewer rights than parents and grandparents. that's a condemnation of the court's conservative majority and the extent to which they have steak shaken american's people faith in the rule of lawle to our sons and daughters across america, fearful of the world that's coming their way, francis bacon once said, truth is the daughter of time. not authority. progress may not always follow a linear path. while it can move at a plotty pace, in due time progress and truth will arrive. to quote justices kagen, sotomayor, and pwrao*euer's decent they understood the world changes. they defined rights in general terms to permit future evolution in our scope and meaning. the story of america is the story of that fay taour evolution and it's the responsibilities of all lawmakers to move forward. we have lot of work to do to leave americans in the future in a better position than the world that we have handed them. this hearing is the first organized serious hearing in the senate on this subject. it won't be the last. the conversation continue. i thank all the members of the phrapbl for joining us today. with that the senate judiciary committee committee stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org]

Related Keywords

Myanmar , Louisiana , United States , Alabama , United Kingdom , China , Minnesota , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Connecticut , Mexico , Berkeley School , Missouri , Massachusetts , Iowa , Sacramento , New York , Georgia , Mississippi River , North Carolina , Texas , Boston , Rhode Island , Illinois , New London , Indiana , Virginia , Newhaven , Oregon , Mississippi , Oklahoma , Kenya , Tennessee , Nebraska , Colorado , North Korea , Kansas , North Dakota , Romania , Hawaii , Texans , Americans , Burma , Britain , American , Giuliana Stratton , Ben Durbin , Christine Francis , Stratton States , Bob Casey , Roe V Wade , Joe Biden , John Hart Ely , Coney Barrett , Robinette Biden , Robert Sanderson , Roe America , Tim Russert , Wade , Catherine Glenn , Leanne Nichols , Cornyn Sen , Feinstein Sen , Susan B Anthony , Ross Sen , Sen Blackburn , Eric Rudolph , Julian Stratton , Cori Bush ,