[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A STATE OF CRISIS: EXAMINING THE
URGENT NEED TO PROTECT AND
EXPAND ABORTION RIGHTS AND ACCESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 30, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-899 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Katie Porter, California Pete Sessions, Texas
Cori Bush, Missouri Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Andy Biggs, Arizona
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Peter Welch, Vermont Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Scott Franklin, Florida
Georgia Jake LaTurner, Kansas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Pat Fallon, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Byron Donalds, Florida
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Mike Quigley, Illinois
Russell Anello, Staff Director
Miles Lichtman, Team Lead
Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 30, 2021............................... 1
Witnesses
Panel 1
The Honorable Cori Bush, Member of Congress, First District of
Missouri
Oral Statement............................................... 7
The Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Member of Congress, Seventh
District of Washington
Oral Statement............................................... 8
The Honorable Kat Cammack, Member of Congress, Third District of
Florida
Oral Statement............................................... 10
The Honorable Barbara Lee, Co-Chair, Congressional Pro-Choice
Caucus, Member of Congress, 13th District of California
Oral Statement............................................... 11
The Honorable Judy Chu, Member of Congress, 27th District of
California
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Panel 2
Ms. Gloria Steinem, Feminist and Social Activist
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Ms. Melissa Murray, Professor of Law, New York University
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Dr. Ingrid Skop, Texas-based OB/GYN
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Ms. Loretta Ross, Co-Founder of the Reproductive Justice
Movement, Associate Professor of the Study of Women and Gender,
Smith College
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, Texas-based OB/GYN, Board Member,
Physicians for Reproductive Health
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Ms. Maleeha Aziz, Community Organizer, Texas Equal Access Fund
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The documents listed below are available at: docs.house.gov.
* Amicus brief, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization,
et. al; submitted by Rep. Foxx.
* Article regarding the science of pregnancy and its
implications for
abortion; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article opposing the Women's Health Protection Act; submitted
by Rep. Biggs.
* Letter from Students for Life; submitted by Rep. Foxx.
* Letters from Committee Republicans to Committee Democrats;
submitted by Rep. Comer.
* Letters from Committee Republicans to the Biden
Administration;
submitted by Rep. Comer.
* Statements from Texas women; submitted by Rep. Escobar.
* Trump Twitter slide; submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
A STATE OF CRISIS: EXAMINING THE
URGENT NEED TO PROTECT AND
EXPAND ABORTION RIGHTS AND ACCESS
----------
Thursday, September 30, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, and via Zoom. Hon.
Carolyn Maloney [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Connolly,
Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Porter,
Bush, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Welch, Johnson, Sarbanes,
Speier, Kelly, Lawrence, DeSaulnier, Gomez, Pressley, Quigley,
Comer, Gosar, Foxx, Hice, Grothman, Cloud, Gibbs, Higgins,
Norman, Keller, Biggs, Clyde, Mace, Franklin, LaTurner, Fallon,
Herrell, Donalds. Donalds, Mace, Herrell, LaTurner, Fallon,
Clyde, and Franklin.
Also present: Representatives Chu, Lee, Shrier, Escobar,
Fletcher, and Cammack.
Chairwoman Maloney. [Presiding.] The committee will come to
order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today I am once again convening the Committee on Oversight
and Reform to sound the alarm on the grave threat to abortion
rights and access in the United States. Nearly two years ago, I
called my first hearing as chairwoman of this committee to
examine draconian attempts by state governments, including the
state of Missouri, to restrict access to abortion care. Since
then, the threat to abortion rights has only become more dire.
Millions of Americans are now living in a state where they lack
meaningful access to abortion care. The right to abortion is
rendered meaningless without access.
Most recently, Texas enacted Senate Bill 8, which bans
abortion after six weeks of pregnancy before many people even
know they are pregnant. This is really a total ban on abortion.
The law authorizes private citizens anywhere in the United
States to sue anyone who assists a person in getting an
abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, and it creates a bounty
system that can entitle plaintiffs to a $10,000 award. Lawsuits
have already been filed by people hoping to cash in under this
dangerous, harmful law. This chilling, far-reaching law turns
private citizens into vigilantes who can assert control over
other people's bodies. If we do nothing, the consequences will
not be limited to Texas.
The Supreme Court allowed this unprecedented, dangerous
abortion ban to go into effect, and already medical facilities
in surrounding states are receiving numerous calls from Texans
in urgent need of abortion care. And other states hostile to
abortion rights are following the leadership of S.B. 8. In
December, the Supreme Court will consider a 15-week abortion
ban passed in Missouri. This case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's
Health Organization, poses a direct threat to Roe v. Wade,
making it a very real possibility that the constitutional right
to abortion will be overturned in the coming months.
Let me very clear. Access to abortion is a freedom that is
essential for Americans' ability to control their own bodies
and to decide their own futures. Nearly 1 in 4 women in the
United States will have an abortion in their lifetime, but with
a hostile Supreme Court, extremist state governments are no
longer chipping away at constitutional rights. They are
bulldozing right through them. We must take bold action to
protect and expand abortion care rights and access.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed
Congresswoman Judy Chu's Women's Health Protection Act, which
would establish a federally protected right to abortion care
for every person in the United States, no matter where they
live. I call on the Senate to meet the moment and immediately
pass this critical bill, but we cannot stop there. We must also
pass Congresswoman Barbara Lee's EACH Act, which would put an
end to the harmful funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment
that for too long have pushed abortion care out of reach,
particularly for people of color and people with less income.
We must ensure access to medication abortion, a process that
involves just two types of pills that can be taken at home and
are safer than some medications sold over the counter. Despite
the thoroughly documented safety of medication abortion, there
are still onerous, medically unnecessary restrictions on this
type of care.
Last, we must enact democracy reforms that will protect
voting rights for all so that the government more accurately
reflects the American people. It is completely backward that a
majority of Americans support preserving abortion rights,
while, at the same time, more and more states are working to
block them. We must change that.
Today we have the privilege of hearing directly from our
congressional colleagues, who are incredible leaders on issues
of reproductive rights and access. Their personal experiences
demonstrate why every person must be able to exercise their
right to choose abortion, and I am grateful to them for their
courage and for coming forward to share their stories. We will
also hear from a distinguished panel of patients, providers,
advocates, and experts, including the feminist icon, Gloria
Steinem.
Now I would like to recognize my colleague on this
committee, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, for an opening
statement. Congresswoman Pressley serves as chair of the
Abortion Rights and Access Task Force of the Pro-Choice Caucus,
and she is a champion for equitable abortion access and a
kinder, less stigmatizing world for abortion patients. Ms.
Pressley, you are now recognized for three minutes.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for convening
this critically important hearing today.
Let me make it plain. Abortion care is a constitutional
right, and this pro-choice Democratic majority--House, Senate,
and White House--can and must do everything possible to protect
and guarantee it as such. We find ourselves in the midst of an
unprecedented wave of coordinated tasks on our reproductive
freedom and bodily autonomy, and Texas' horrendous and extreme
S.B. 8 abortion ban underscores the urgency of this moment.
The year, 2021, has been the most devastating for abortion
rights in American history. In the midst of an ongoing global
pandemic that robbed us of more than 690,000 lives and
disproportionately impacted our most vulnerable and black and
brown communities, anti-abortion legislators in 47 states
focused on legislating hurt and harm to push this critical
healthcare out of reach. These misguided bans will not actually
prevent all abortions. They simply put safe and necessary
abortion care out of reach for our most vulnerable,
specifically our lowest-income sisters, our queer, trans, and
non-binary siblings, black, Latinx, AAPI, immigrants, disabled,
and indigenous folks. And none of this is happenstance. It is
precise. Like the roots of the anti-abortion movement, these
bans are rooted in patriarchy and white supremacy. They
perpetuate cycles of poverty and economic inequality and
exacerbate many of our starkest health disparities. Enough.
SCOTUS had the chance to call S.B 8. for what it is: a
blatant violation of the constitutional rights of nearly 7
million Texans of reproductive age. But from voting rights, to
housing, to reproductive rights, it is clear the Supreme Court
is no longer on the side of justice, nor is it on the side of
the people. It is critical that Congress legislate and combat
these attacks once and for all. I was proud to see the House
take swift action to pass the Women's Health Protection Act
last week, legislation that I co-led alongside my friend and
colleague, Representative Chu, that finally codify the right to
abortion care. We must legislate as if the lives and
livelihoods of our most vulnerable constituents depend on it
because they do. The Senate and the White House must act
swiftly to pass this bill and sign it into law.
It has been 30 days since the Texas law went into effect,
and each day that goes by without congressional action, more
and more people are denied their constitutional right to
critical abortion care. So, Madam Chair, thank you for making
this hearing a top priority.
I would like to thank my sisters in service who are joining
us here today. Thank you for sharing your stories. Thank you
for your vulnerability. Thank you for being unapologetic in
your storytelling and standing in your truth. By doing so, you
create the space for others to do the same and help us do the
work of dispelling the shame and stigma that has clouded
abortion for far too long. And while I greatly appreciate your
bravery, I also look forward to a day where people no longer
have to relive their trauma in order to advance justice.
Thank you to the activists, experts, and providers joining
us today. Thank you to our staffs. And for speaking truth to
power and ensuring that Congress remains steadfast in our
efforts to affirm reproductive rights and justice for all, I am
proud to be your partner in this fight. Thank you. I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. I now recognize the
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Comer, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney. The question of
access to abortion is an issue that has been and should be left
to the states, but that is not to say there is not a role for
the Federal Government in protecting life. We must continue to
prevent taxpayer funding from being used for abortion services
as we learn more through modern science about an unborn child's
development and ability to feel pain.
Yet here we are having a hearing about a state's abortion
law. We are not having a hearing about the border crisis, a
humanitarian and national security crisis created by the Biden
Administration. We are not having a hearing on the disastrous
Afghanistan withdrawal, another humanitarian and national
security crisis created by the Biden Administration, a crisis
where a terrorist attack has already murdered 13 Marines and
many more Afghans with the politically motivated deadly drone
strike that killed 10 civilians, including seven children, with
many Americans and green card holders left behind, not to
mention all of our allies, including women and girls, left to
be tortured and murdered by the Taliban regime.
No, we are not having a hearing on those pressing issues.
We are not even having a hearing on the economy with rising
consumer prices and labor shortages. We are having another
hearing on a state law, on an issue over which this committee
has absolutely no jurisdiction. We have sent 20 letters to you,
Madam Chair, asking for hearings and investigations. We have
not had a hearing on a single one of these issues.
Let me throw out some more stats. In 2019, there was a
Republican in the White House and Democrats controlled the
House. This committee, the Oversight Committee, held almost 80
hearings with almost 80 Administration witnesses. So far this
year, with only a few weeks left, less than half as many
hearings and less than a third as many Administration
witnesses. And in 2017, when there was a Republican in the
White House and Republicans running this House and this
committee, this committee, the Oversight Committee, held almost
70 hearings with 112 Administration witnesses. One hundred and
twelve. So the Republicans took oversight seriously even when
there was a Republican President. But with President Biden in
the White House, oversight is off the agenda. Apparently we
cannot be bothered with it.
This is the U.S. House of Representatives. We are a part of
Congress, a separate branch of government. We are not in the
executive branch. It is our constitutional obligation to be
conducting oversight over the executive branch. Rather than do
anything remotely close, we are sprinting away from it to the
detriment of our institution, to the detriment of the American
people.
Now, I yield the remainder of my time to Congresswoman
Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. I thank Ranking Member Comer for yielding. Those
of us on our side of the dais see this as a very solemn day. It
appears that the purpose of this hearing is to normalize the
destruction of unborn babies, which is called abortion. Let me
say at the outset that I feel profound sorrow for any woman who
believes that she must destroy her unborn child, and I
certainly extend that to our colleagues here today. Instead of
glorifying this awful act of desperation, we ought to grieve
for the tens of millions of Americans who never had a chance to
take their first breath, to see their mother's face, or even to
cry for help.
Children in the womb are people. They are our sons,
daughters, future teachers, future Members of Congress. They
are innocent lives who do not deserve death. I refuse to
normalize abortion and reject its very premise that the
sacrifice of an innocent life that cannot speak for itself is
justified in any way. We live in a society that mistakes choice
for liberty and denies the dignity of unborn life, but the
beauty of living in a free country is that we can use our
liberty for love. We must put love into action every day,
affirming the value of life at all stages, no matter the
difficulties it presents.
Striving to love daily is not easy, yet it is the greatest
exercise of our freedom, and there is no life unworthy of that
love. Those who are attempting to normalize the destruction of
the innocent unborn do so through language that denies what
they are doing. Today we will hear many terrible euphemisms--we
have already heard them--for the slaughter of children. Allow
me to define some of the terms. Women's health: abortion or
destruction of innocent unborn babies. And how can this be true
when half the babies aborted are female? Reproductive freedom:
the ability to murder a child out of convenience. Abortion
rights: robbing another of life. Pro-choice: destroying
innocent life.
It is important that we not allow these terms to obscure
what is happening to millions of unborn babies. It is becoming
a common refrain for many women to say that ``I wouldn't be the
person I am today if I had not had an abortion.'' Well, I can
tell you that Representative Kat Cammack literally would not be
the woman she is today because of abortion. She would not be
with us, and those of you who promote abortion would not be
with us if your mothers had had an abortion. We should grieve
for the millions of children whose lives were ended because
they were not wanted.
Whether a pregnancy is planned or unplanned or even the
result of horrific circumstances, ending that child's life with
an abortion to empower or protect the ``freedom'' of the mother
is not an answer. Abortion only compounds the sorrow. How can
any woman say that her life is better because of abortion? Who
is anyone to say that? Has she looked into the future and seen
all the possible arcs of her life? Has she seen the future of
her unborn child's life and all the possibilities that life
held? Has she determined that her child's life is not worth
living?
Abortion is not prideful. It is not a form of empowerment.
Motherhood is empowerment. Only women have the ability to bring
life into the world. Abortion is robbing a woman of motherhood
and robbing a human being of God's most precious gift: life.
Life is the most fundamental of all rights. It is sacred and
God given, but tens of millions of babies have been robbed of
that right in this, the freest country in the world. This is a
tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we as Nation stand
for. Before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of
conscience, the pursuit of happiness, and justice for all,
there has to be life, and yet for millions of aborted infants,
many pain capable and many discriminated against because of
gender or disability, life is exactly what they have been
denied. And an affront to life for some is an affront to life
for every one of us.
One day we hope it will be different. We hope life will
cease to be valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of
elective abortions ushered in by an unelected Court will be
closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters of
American history, but until that day, it remains a solemn duty
to stand up for life. Regardless of the length of this journey,
we will continue to speak for those who cannot, and we will
continue to pray to the One who can change the hearts of those
in desperation and those in power who equally hold the lives of
the innocent in their hands. May we, in love, defend the
unborn. May we, in humility, confront this national sin. And
may we mourn at what abortion reveals about the conscience of
our Nation.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. I would
just like to respond, thank them for their testimony and
respond to the distinguished Republican minority leader on the
committee, that at his request and others of this committee, we
held a classified briefing last week on Afghanistan with
numerous Administration officials addressing some of the
questions that he brought up today.
But today, we have two panels, and our first panel is a
member panel, so I would like to introduce them first. First we
have Congresswoman Cori Bush from the 1st District of Missouri,
who is a valued member of this committee and is a member of the
freshman class and a Democratic leader in it. Second, we have
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal from the 7th District of
Washington, who is chair of the congressional Progressive
Caucus. Then we will hear from Congresswoman Kat Cammack from
the 3d District of Florida, who is a leader in the freshman
class of Republicans. Next, we have Congresswoman Barbara Lee
from the 13th District of California, who is the co-chair of
the congressional Pro-Choice Caucus. Last but not least, we
will hear from Congresswoman Judy Chu from the 27th District of
California, who is the lead sponsor of the Women's Health
Protection Act, which was passed by the House of
Representatives last week.
Without objection, your written statements will be part of
the record, and I will note that there will be meetings and
demonstrations across this country on the same subject, women
telling their stories. I want to thank you for your courage and
for coming to testify today.
With that, Congresswoman Bush, you are now recognized for
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORI BUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I thank you, Chairwoman Maloney,
for convening this urgent hearing. It is an honor to join
Congresswomen Lee, Jayapal, and Chu as part of today's panel,
and I also want to thank my sister, Congresswoman Pressley, for
her leadership in this hearing, and to my sisters in service
for being here with me today, and brother.
In the summer of 1994, I was a young girl all of 17 years
old and had just graduated high school. Like so many black
girls during that time, I was obsessed with fashion and gold
jewelry and how I physically showed up in the world, but I was
also very lost. For all of my life, I had been a straight-A
student with dreams of attending college and becoming a nurse,
but high school, early on, was difficult for me. I was
discriminated against, bullied, and as time passed, my grades
slipped and, along with it, the dream of attaining a full
scholarship to a historically black college. That summer, I was
just happy that I passed my classes and that I finished high
school.
Shortly after graduating, I went on a church trip to
Jackson, Mississippi. I had many friends on that trip, and
while there, I met a boy, a friend of a friend. He was a little
older than I was, about maybe 20 years old. That first day we
met, we flirted. We talked on the phone. While on the phone, he
asked me could he come over to my room. I was bunking with a
friend and hanging out and said he could stop by, but he didn't
show up for a few hours, and by the time he did, it was so late
that my friend and I had gone to bed. I answered the door and
quietly told him he could come in, imagining that we would talk
and laugh like we had done over the phone. But the next thing I
knew, he was on top of me, messing with my clothes, and not
saying anything at all. What is happening, I thought. I didn't
know what to do. I was frozen in shock just laying there as his
weight pressed down upon me. When he was done, he got up, he
pulled up his pants, and without a word, he left. That was it.
I was confused. I was embarrassed. I was ashamed. I asked
myself, was it something that I had done? The next morning, I
wanted to talk to him. I just wanted to say something to him,
but he refused to talk to me. By the time that trip ended, we
still hadn't spoken at all.
About a month after the trip, I turned 18. A few weeks
later, I realized I had missed my period. I reached out to a
friend and asked the guy from the church trip to contact me. I
waited for him to reach out, but he never did. I never heard
from him. I was 18, I was broke, and I felt so alone. I blamed
myself for what had happened to me, but I knew I had options. I
had known other girls who had gone to a local clinic to get
birth control and some who had gotten abortions, so I looked
through the yellow pages and scheduled an appointment.
During my first visit, I found out that I was nine weeks
pregnant, and then and there the panic set in. How could I make
this pregnancy work? How could I, at 18 years old and barely
scraping by, support a child on my own? And I would've been on
my own. I was stressed out knowing that the father wouldn't be
involved, and I feared my parents would kick me out of the
home. The best parents in the world, but I feared they would
kick me out. My dad was a proud father and was always bragging
about his little girl and how he knew I would go straight to
college and become attorney general. That was his goal for me.
So with no scholarship intact and college out of the
foreseeable future, I couldn't bear the thought of
disappointing my dad again. I knew it was a decision I had to
make for myself, so I did.
My abortion happened on a Saturday. There were a few other
people in the clinic waiting room, including one other young
black girl. I overheard the clinic staff talking about her
saying she had ruined her life and ``That's what they do,''
``they'' being black girls like us. Before the procedure, I
remember going in for counseling and being told that if I move
forward with this pregnancy, my baby would be jacked up because
the fetus was already malnourished and underweight, being told
that if I had this baby, I would wind up on food stamps and
welfare. I was being talked to like trash and it worsened my
shame. Afterwards, while in the changing area, I heard some
girls, all white, talking about how they were told how bright
their futures were, how loved their babies would be if they
were adopted, and that their options and their opportunities
were limitless.
In that moment, listening to those girls, I felt anguish. I
felt like I had failed. I went home. My body ached, and I had
this heavy bleeding. I felt so sick. I felt dizzy, nauseous. I
felt like something was missing. I felt alone, but I also felt
so resolved in my decision. Choosing to have an abortion was
the hardest decision I had ever made, but at 18 years old, I
knew it was the right decision for me. It was freeing knowing I
had options. Even still, it took a long for me to feel like me
again until most recently when I decided to give this speech.
So to all the black women and girls who have had abortions
and will have abortions, we have nothing to be ashamed of. We
live in a society that has failed to legislate love and justice
for us. So we deserve better. We demand better. We are worthy
of better, so that's why I'm here to tell my story. So today, I
sit before you as that nurse, as that pastor--as that pastor--
as that activist, that survivor, that single mom, that
Congresswoman to testify that in the summer of 1994, I was
raped, I became pregnant, and I chose to have an abortion.
I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Congresswoman Jayapal, you
are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. PRAMILA JAYAPAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Ms. Jayapal. Chairwoman Maloney and Ranking Member Comer,
thank you for inviting me to speak today. I speak to you as one
of the 1 in 4 women in America who have had an abortion. And
for you to understand how I ultimately decided to have an
abortion, I have to start earlier with the birth of my first
child, Janak.
Janak was born at 26-and-a-half weeks while I was on a two-
year fellowship living in India. They weighed only 1 pound, 14
ounces, and upon birth, went down to a weight of just 21
ounces. Janak was so small, they fit in the palm of my hand,
the size of a medium-sized squash. For three months, we did not
know if Janak would live or die. They needed multiple blood
transfusions, had to be fed drop by drop, and constantly had
their heart stop and start. We returned to the United States
after three months. In those early intensely difficult years,
Janak had hydrocephalus--water on the brain--seizures, and
repeatedly returned to the emergency room because of life-
threatening pneumonia. The fact that Janak is a 25-year-old
beautiful human being is a true miracle and the greatest gift
in my life.
At the same time that Janak was born, I was also fighting
to keep my legal permanent residence status, married to a U.S.
citizen with a U.S. citizen child now. In the end, I was able
to return to the United States with Janak, provided that I
started from scratch to qualify for citizenship. As a new mom
taking care of a very sick baby and recovering from major
surgery myself, I was struggling. I experienced severe
postpartum depression and post-traumatic stress disorder that
was only diagnosed after I contemplated suicide and realized I
needed to seek help.
My marriage did not survive. We split custody of Janak, and
I was a part-time single parent. Shortly after, I met a
wonderful man who is my husband today. I knew I was not ready
to have another child, so I religiously took my daily
contraceptive pill. Despite that, I became pregnant. I
consulted with my doctors who told me that any future pregnancy
would likely also be high risk to me and the child, similar to
what I had gone through with Janak. I very much wanted to have
more children, but I simply could not imagine going through
that again. After discussions with my partner, who was
completely supportive of whatever choice I made, I decided to
have an abortion. Two decades later, I think about those
moments on the table in the doctor's office, a doctor who was
kind and compassionate and skilled, performing abortions in a
state that recognizes a person's constitutional right to make
their choices about their reproductive care. For me,
terminating my pregnancy was not an easy choice, the most
difficult I've made in my life, but it was my choice, and that
is what must be preserved for every pregnant person.
Until 2019, I never spoke publicly or privately about my
abortion. In fact, I did not even tell my mother about it. Some
of it was because as an immigrant from a culture that deeply
values children, and in an American society that still
stigmatizes abortion, suicide, and mental health needs, I felt
shame that I never should have felt. Two years ago, I decided
to tell my story as a Member of Congress because I was so
deeply concerned about the abortion ban legislation that was
coming out from states across the country.
Today, I am testifying before you because I want you to
know that there are so many different situations that people
face in making these choices. Whether the choice to have an
abortion is easy or hard, whether there are traumatic
situations or not, none of that should be the issue. It is
simply nobody's business what choices we as pregnant people
make about our own bodies. And let me clear. I would never tell
people who don't choose to have an abortion that they should do
so, nor should they tell me that I shouldn't. This is a
constitutionally protected, intensely personal choice.
I did not suffer the economic issues that so many poor and
black and brown and Latinx people suffer. I did not suffer from
living in a state that does not allow pregnant people to make
these choices. And unlike one of my colleagues who is
testifying today, I had the privilege of experiencing the world
in a post-Roe v. Wade time where abortion was established as a
constitutional right. Because of the cruel Texas abortion ban
and the other state abortion bans currently being litigated by
those unaffected by the outcome, many people may not have the
same choice as I did. That is unacceptable. Abortion bans are
not just a political issue. They do real harm to people across
the country and in our most vulnerable communities.
I am so proud today to be testifying alongside fellow women
of color, Members of Congress, about the need to protect our
right to control our bodies. It is time to make the Women's
Health Protection Act law, to repeal the Hyde Amendment, and to
remove the stigma around abortion care and reproductive health
choices. I thank you for the time, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you very much. I now recognize
Congresswoman Cammack. You are now recognized for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAT CAMMACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good morning and
thank you for having me here today on this panel. Thank you to
Ranking Member Comer. I appreciate everything that you all do
here.
Distinguished members of this committee, I am pleased to be
with you this morning, though I wish my testimony came here
under better circumstances. Right now, our country is facing a
number of crises that House Democrats have been loath to
acknowledge or make progress toward fixing: the crisis in
Afghanistan, Americans still stranded, border crisis with
record crossings, and a humanitarian public health disaster
unfolding on a daily basis. Now we are looking at stripping one
of the longest provisions in U.S. history, the Hyde Amendment.
Meanwhile, the majority members of this committee, who have
direct oversight over the very issues I just mentioned, have
chosen to spend valuable time glorifying and normalizing
abortion instead of doing what this committee should: properly
overseeing the very crises that my colleagues and I have been
raising alarm bells about for months.
However, today I want to speak to you about a very personal
aspect of my own story that propels me each and every single
day in this body. As I said last week on the House floor and
while defending life dozens of times prior, I was not supposed
to be here. I would not be here had it not been for the very
brave choice that my mother made 33 years ago. See, when my mom
was pregnant with my sister at age 27, a single mom, she
suffered a devastating stroke. It took her a year-and-a-half to
learn how to walk again, basic motor skills, and to this day
still struggles. Miraculously, she was able to deliver a
healthy baby girl, and many years later when she was pregnant
with me, she found, through the advice of her doctors, that,
no, it was highly unlikely, if not impossible, for not only her
to survive, but me as well.
So you can imagine the fear, the disappointment, the
struggle, the internal anguish that my mother felt as doctors
told her that she needed to abort her child. You can imagine
the pain that she felt when her own family told her that she
needed to abort her child, but because of her strength, she
chose life. That wasn't an easy decision for a single mom, for
a working-class mom, someone herself who had lived a life of
disappointments, of struggle, addiction, and yet, despite
everything, she chose life.
She did something that many of my colleagues here could've
done. Every woman's story is different. Every woman's story is
different, and these decisions do not come easy. But I am
grateful every single day that there were resources available
for my mom because in that moment she chose life, and those
resources were available to her as a single mom. My mom
survived. I survived, and I am a living, breathing witness of
the power of life and the incredible choice that my own mother
made, and I get emotional about it. I think this issue,
everyone gets emotional about, and knowing that you were never
supposed to survive, it gives you a new perspective about life.
For that and my mother's choice, I am incredibly grateful.
There are millions of women out there, like my mom, who
made the same decision that she did. With her decision, we were
able to go as the daughter of a single mother, from homeless to
the House of Representatives. That is only possible in America,
and that is only possible in an America that values life
because we were built on the premise of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. It begins with life, and I know there has
been a lot of talk about justice here today. What about the
justice for those unborn, all the little girls that never had a
shot? Where was their choice? It is because this body is saying
that they don't get a choice. They don't get a shot at life,
and that is why we here today, as defenders and warriors of the
unborn, want to make sure that every little boy and every
little girl has a shot to achieve the American Dream, that same
American Dream that has allowed me to be here speaking to you
today.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for allowing me to share my
story, my mother's story here today. Thank you to all my
colleagues. And to anyone watching who may one day may be faced
with this decision, and I pray they choose life.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Congresswoman Lee, you are
now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairwoman
Maloney, and members, and my colleagues for having this very
important hearing and for inviting me to join this panel. As
co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, as a black woman, a woman
born in Texas, these state-level abortion bans, like Texas S.B.
8, are deadly. I know what this means for black people, and
brown people, and people with low incomes.
Today I share for the first time publicly a very difficult
personal story, hoping that it will help de-stigmatize
accessing abortion care. I am sharing my story, even though I
truly believe it is personal and really nobody's business, and
certainly not the business of politicians. But I am compelled
to speak out because of the real risks of the clock being
turned back to those days before Roe v. Wade, to the days when
I was a teenager and had a back-alley abortion in Mexico.
I was raised in El Paso, Texas and attended Catholic
school, so, of course, growing up, sex education was
nonexistent. Adolescent, sexual, and reproductive health were
not discussed in a meaningful way, and because of that, I
honestly wasn't sure how you got pregnant. Most of what I
learned about sex and relationships was from pages of magazines
and hearsay from my peers. I lived in a loving, extended family
household with my wonderful parents and grandparents who wanted
me to make straight A's, practice the piano day and night, and,
of course, stay away from boys.
Now, after grammar school, we moved to California, and
later when I just turned 16, I missed my period. I was
confused, afraid, and unsure, not knowing if I was pregnant or
not. I didn't know what to do. Now, in those days--mind you,
this is in the mid-1960's--women and girls were told if you
didn't have a period, you should take quinine pills, sit in a
tub of water, or use a coat hanger if nothing else worked. My
mother noticed I became introverted and very quiet, so she
asked me what was going on with me. At that point, I told her
everything. I told her that I maybe, maybe not could be
pregnant. She responded with love. She was supportive and
sympathetic and took me to the doctor who confirmed I was
pregnant.
Now, my mother asked me if I wanted to get an abortion. She
didn't demand or force me but understood that this was my
personal decision and a choice that I needed to make, and she
would support me regardless. Now mind you, I was the first
black cheerleader in my high school, got very good grades, was
active in my church, and a member of the Honor Society, and an
accomplished pianist. In fact, I won two music scholarships. So
I felt embarrassed and thought if anyone found out, my life
would be destroyed.
It was so important for me to have someone I trusted to
help me with this decision, so once I made this decision
prayerfully, one of my mother's best friends in El Paso helped
me access the abortion I could not get in California. When my
mother told her what was going on, she told my mother to send
me to her in El Paso because she knew of a good, competent, and
compassionate doctor, yes, who had a back-alley clinic in
Mexico. She was kind and loving and took me to Mexico to have a
DNC abortion procedure. Remember, I had just turned 16.
Now, I was one of the lucky ones, Madam Chair. A lot of
girls and women in my generation didn't make it. They died from
unsafe abortions. In the 1960's, unsafe septic abortions were
the primary killer--primary killer--of African American women.
My personal experience shaped my beliefs to fight for people's
reproductive freedom. And when I was elected to the California
Legislature, one of the first bills I authored and was signed
into law was to enhance penalties on people who were blocking
access to abortion clinics for those seeking care. It also
shaped much of my work in Congress. My lack of sexual education
was why I authored H.R. 3312, the Real Education and Access to
Healthy Youth Act, which provides comprehensive sex ed to young
people in schools, which I hope all of you will co-sponsor.
Now, in 1973, Roe v. Wade was decided in the Supreme Court,
which affirmed the right to an abortion. Shortly after Roe, I
was a congressional staffer for the late, our beloved
Congressman Ron Dellums. Henry Hyde introduced the Hyde
Amendment blocking insurance coverage for abortion for low-
income and poor people. And he said, ``I certainly would like
to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion--a
rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman,'' and then
he went on to say, ``Unfortunately, the only vehicle available
is the Medicaid bill.'' The Hyde Amendment, from its inception,
was racist and discriminatory and aimed at people with low
incomes and people of color. And so I am proud to be the lead
co-sponsor of the EACH Act.
This year for the first time, we fought hard to remove the
Hyde Amendment from the 2022 House appropriations bill. Now,
today, on the 45th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment's passage,
I think about people like Rosie Jimenez, a Latina who died
because the Hyde Amendment denied her the ability to have a
safe abortion because her insurance would not cover it. This is
why I share my story with all of you today. I have two
wonderful sons, five grandchildren. I don't want them or anyone
to experience a world without access to the full range of
reproductive services, including abortions. I want them and
every person to be able to make their own decisions about their
bodies and their lives.
Last week, I was proud to have voted for the Women's Health
Protection Act led by our brilliant colleague, Congresswoman
Judy Chu, but we can't stop there. We continue to witness
states attempting to take us back to the days I know so well.
We cannot and will not return to those days before Roe, and we
will be watching the Supreme Court decisions.
Yes, members, this is my story, as hard as it is to talk
about it. I hope that regardless of your personal views, it
will help you understand, understand that people deserve a
right to make their own reproductive decisions about their
lives, their bodies, and their futures. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Congresswoman Chu, you are now recognized for your testimony.
Congresswoman Chu.
STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHU, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Chu. Chair Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and members
of the committee, I want to thank you for holding today's
important hearing in which we've heard so many moving stories.
I'm here to talk about the hardship faced by individuals who
cannot access the full range of reproductive health options due
to burdensome state laws and how we can help, thanks to my bill
that passed the House last week, H.R. 3755, the Women's Health
Protection Act.
Everyone deserves equal access to comprehensive and safe
reproductive healthcare, no matter where they live, free from
political interference. But anti-abortion extremists have been
working ever since the passage of Roe v. Wade to put abortion
services out of reach for as many Americans as possible. Texas'
S.B. 8 is just the latest example. The Texas law is egregious
and downright chilling. It deputizes vigilantes to harass
anyone helping someone obtain an abortion, from a doctor to
clinic staff to an Uber driver. And it prohibits abortions at
six weeks, before most even know that they are pregnant.
But it is not an outlier. Since 2011, anti-abortion
extremists have introduced nearly 500 of these restrictive
state laws. For instance, they've had mandatory ultrasounds,
waiting periods, or funerals for fetuses, all meant to shame
people who access abortion care, while needless requirements,
like wider doors or hospital admitting privileges, are meant to
make it harder for a doctor to be able to practice medicine,
forcing them to close their doors or turn away patients. None
of these restrictions make abortion care safer, and instead
impose an undue hardship on those seeking an abortion.
This is a coordinated nationwide strategy to eliminate
abortion access and provide an opportunity to overturn or
undermine Roe. In 2019 alone, 18 states passed 46 laws
restricting or banning abortion, including Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Louisiana, Ohio, and Alabama. The result is that
abortion access is often determined by an individual's zip
code. Nearly 90 percent of American counties are without a
single abortion provider, and six states are down to their last
abortion clinic. No constitutional right should be contingent
on where you live.
My bill, the Women's Health Protection Act, will put a stop
to these state-based attacks and enshrine the protections of
Roe into law by ensuring that providers have the right to
provide and patients have the right to receive abortions free
of medically unnecessary restrictions. The Women's Health
Protection Act will ensure that no matter where someone lives,
no matter their zip code, abortion access is a right for all.
Weakening or overturning Roe poses a threat to our
fundamental rights to make a personal decision beyond abortion,
including who to have intimate relationships with, who to
marry, and whether to use contraception. That's why I'm so
proud that last week the House took the historic step of
passing the legislation, and, in fact, it was the first
affirmative abortion rights vote in nearly 25 years. And it
shows the American people that we will not abandon them.
The Supreme Court has announced its intention to hear
Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Dobbs, a case that
directly challenges Roe v. Wade, this December. The Mississippi
ban threatens abortion providers with severe penalties for
providing abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. It defies
nearly 50 years of Supreme Court precedent going back to Roe
that recognizes that the Constitution guarantees each person
the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. There is
no path for the Supreme Court to uphold Mississippi's ban
without overturning Roe's core holding that every pregnant
person has the right to decide whether to continue their
pregnancy prior to viability.
Abortion restrictions are part of the intertwined systems
of oppression that deny black, indigenous, and people of color
their constitutional rights. The people most hurt by these
restrictions are those who already face barriers to healthcare.
I am pleased to say that Senate Majority Leader Schumer has
announced his intention to bring WHPA to the Senate floor for a
vote so we can ensure that regardless of what happens at the
Supreme Court, women are free to make decisions about their
lives and bodies in consultation with their families and their
physicians, not politicians.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. I thank all of you for your extremely
powerful testimony and for sharing your stories. There will be
demonstrations across the country this weekend where women,
following your leadership, will share their stories. I am
grateful for your being here today and for your dedication to
helping other people.
The panel is now excused, and we will pause for a moment
while we get the second panel ready.
[Pause.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Now I would like to introduce our
second panel of witnesses.
Our first witness today is Gloria Steinem, who is a
longtime feminist who has dedicated her life to protecting
women's rights. She brings a unique perspective having worked
for Voters for Choice and advocated for the right to an
abortion even before the Roe v. Wade decision. Then we will
hear from Melissa Murray who is a professor of law at New York
University. Next we will hear from Dr. Isabel Skop, who is a
Texas-based OB/GYN. Next we will hear from Loretta Ross who is
the co-founder of the Reproductive Justice Movement and is an
associate professor of the study of women and gender at Smith
College. Next we will hear from Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, who is
also a Texas-based OB/GYN and is a board member of Physicians
for Reproductive Health. Finally, we will hear from Maleeha
Aziz, who is a community organizer with the Texas Equal Access
Fund.
The witnesses will be unmuted so that we can swear them in.
Please raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony that you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
And without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record.
And with that, Ms. Gloria Steinem, you are now recognized
for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GLORIA STEINEM, FEMINIST AND SOCIAL ACTIVIST
Ms. Steinem. Thank you so much for inviting me to be here
today. I accepted this invitation because I bet I'm one of the
few people old enough to remember how bad it was when abortion
was illegal. That's why what is happening in Texas is not only
a local issue or a women's issue. It is a step against
democracy which allows us to control our own bodies and our own
voices. Remember when Hitler was elected, and he was elected,
his very first official act was to padlock the family planning
clinics and declare abortion a crime against the state.
Mussolini did exactly the same thing because they knew that
controlling reproduction and nationalizing women's bodies is
the first step in an all-controlling state.
The huge majority of American women stand for democracy and
in opposition to Texas Senate Bill 8. We do not want to have
our bodies nationalized. Otherwise, we will be very close to
turning back the clock to the days of the 1950's when 1 in 3
women had an illegal and a dangerous abortion. What were those
days like? Well, you know, I was there, and I can tell you, as
many older women can, they were filled with danger for women
and guilt for both women and men. It was a time when 1 in 3 or
4 needed an abortion at some time in their lives, and so they
had to enter into a criminal underground without even the most
basic medical safeguards or protection from sexual exploitation
by the doctors themselves.
In the 1950's, I lived this situation which was also true
in England. I was working as a waitress in London on my way to
India. I had left an engagement to a very nice man here at
home, who we both knew, I think, that marriage would not be the
right thing for us, and I was awaiting a visa for that trip to
India. That fellowship was to be my bridge to a different life,
yet I also had realized that I was pregnant. After what seemed
to be an eternity of confusion and fear, I found a very kind
and brave English doctor who was willing to help me by using a
loophole in the law that allowed an abortion if he signed a
statement saying that pregnancy was dangerous to my physical or
mental health. And he said, but you must promise me two things:
you must never tell anyone my name, and you must do what you
want to do with your life. I'm sure that man is no longer with
us and has not been for many years, yet I am grateful to him to
this day and I dedicated a book to him.
Now, in this country, so many want to declare a fertilized
egg to be a legal person, thus not only criminalizing abortion
but nationalizing women's bodies throughout our childbearing
years by establishing a direct relationship between the
government and a fertilized egg. Indeed, the laws already in
existence deprive poor women who must depend on the government
for healthcare, young women without parental or judicial
permission, and even women in the U.S. military, all deprived
of the reproductive rights available to other women. Many of
them are already the victims of illegal and unsafe abortions
that have become their only recourse.
In the 1950's, the fact that I could be helped was all that
was significant. I could not have had the same safe and legal
abortion if I had stayed in the United States, where draconian
anti-abortion laws, like those now threatened again, were
causing even more deaths than in England. Even so, I could
afford to find a way out as most women could not.
What would a return to the dark days of U.S. history mean?
I remember women who died from septic abortions. I remember
children who were left motherless by women who simply wanted to
have no more children than they could afford to care for.
Already the anti-abortion right wing has created such martyrs
as Rosie Jimenez who died in 1977, the first of many women to
be killed by the Hyde Amendment that denies Medicaid funding
for abortion, or Becky Bell who died in 1988, the first of many
young women to be killed by the parental consent laws that
caused her to seek an illegal abortion rather than disappoint a
loving family.
Standing up for reproductive justice in Texas is not only
standing up for women. It is very simply standing up for
democracy. Without decision-making power over our own bodies,
there is no democracy. We cannot, we must not nationalize
woman's bodies. We must let each woman make this decision for
herself. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Professor Murray, you are
now recognized for your testimony. Professor Murray.
STATEMENT OF MELISSA MURRAY, PROFESSOR OF LAW, NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
Ms. Murray. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney and Ranking
Member Comer. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
in these hearings on the state of crisis in abortion access in
our country. My name is Melissa Murray. I am the Frederick I.
and Grace Stokes professor of law at New York University School
of Law, where I teach constitutional law, family law, and
reproductive rights and justice and serve as the faculty
director of the Birnbaum Women's Leadership Network. Prior to
my appointment at NYU, I was the Alexander F. and May Treat
Morrison professor of law at the University of California,
Berkley, where I taught for 12 years and served as a faculty
director of the Berkeley Center on Reproductive Rights and
Justice, and as the interim dean of the law school.
In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized
that the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of liberty protects a
woman's right to determine whether to bear or beget a child.
Since then, the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the
right to abortion as an essential aspect of the Constitution's
guarantees of liberty and equality. In so doing, the Court has
made clear that states may not ban abortion before viability or
restrict abortion in ways that are unduly burdensome. More
precisely, states may not enact legislation that has the
purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path
of a person seeking an abortion.
Still, despite these longstanding precedents, state
legislatures have continued to test the Constitution's limits
by enacting increasingly restrictive abortion laws. In the
previous decade, the anti-abortion movement sought to legislate
abortion out of existence through piecemeal attacks. The goal
was to gut the undue burden standard so that the right was
essentially meaningless. However, changes in the composition of
the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts have
emboldened state legislatures to pursue an even more aggressive
and extreme agenda, flouting the limits that the Supreme Court
has consistently recognized.
Those responsible for those laws have made their intentions
clear. No longer content to chip away at the abortion right
through piecemeal legislation, these more recent laws are an
obvious provocation designed to relitigate and ultimately
overturn Roe v. Wade, and now they have their chance and they
are fully embracing it. In December, the Supreme Court will
hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a challenge
to Mississippi H.B. 1510, which bans abortion after 15 weeks,
in defiance of longstanding constitutional precedent that
prohibits states from banning abortions before viability. In
its brief before the Court, Mississippi not only entreats the
Court to uphold its unconstitutional ban. It also explicitly
invites the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned
Parenthood v. Casey.
The Supreme Court's recent treatment of a petition
involving S.B. 8, Texas' flagrantly unconstitutional abortion
law, suggests that the Court may well be amenable to this
prospect. Noting the law's procedural irregularities, five
justices set aside nearly five decades' worth of precedent,
allowing S.B. 8's six-week ban to take effect and effectively
overturn the legal right to abortion in Texas. Today marks the
30th day that people in Texas have woken up with fewer
constitutional rights than the rest of the country. No matter
what the Court does moving forward, we will not be able to
erase how its actions failed Texans and our Constitution.
Roe is deeply woven into our country's fabric. People have
firmly supported the fundamental right to abortion for decades
and have relied on Roe's protections in their lives. If the
Court tugs at the threads that undergird Roe, the impact would
not be limited to abortion rights. This legal unraveling would
implicate a range of rights that, like Roe, rest on
constitutional protections for liberty and equality: the right
to marry the person of one's choice, the right of parents to
raise their children in the manner of their choosing, the right
to procreate. If Roe falls, it would endanger all of these
rights as well. It would also put at serious risk our country's
notions of the rule of law, the legitimacy of the judiciary,
and the principle of deference to longstanding precedents.
In conclusion, I hope that as you consider ways to support
and protect the constitutional right to abortion, you will keep
these urgent threats to the rule of law in mind as well as the
communities who are most harmed by them. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Dr. Skop, you are now
recognized for your testimony.
[No response.]
Chairwoman Maloney. We can't hear you. Speak up. Turn your
mic on.
Dr. Skop. Oh.
STATEMENT OF INGRID SKOP, M.D., TEXAS-BASED OB/GYN
Dr. Skop. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
committee. I am Dr. Ingrid Skop. I'm a Board-certified OB/GYN
from San Antonio. In the past 29 years, I have delivered over
5,000 babies. Each of these children has made a tremendous
impact on the lives of the people surrounding them, although
many of them were not intentionally conceived.
The Texas Heartbeat Act has reminded us of an inconvenient
fact. A month after conception, a fetus develops a heartbeat,
which is universally recognized as a sign of life. Nearly 50
years ago, the Supreme Court contended it could not resolve the
difficult question of whether this was a life. Today we cannot
plead ignorance. We have all seen ultrasounds, pictures of the
unborn demonstrating he is just like us, only smaller and more
in need of our care. The abortion debate has been obscured by
euphemisms that allow us to mask the horror of the action. We
have created a class of humans considered unworthy of life on
their own merits, valuable only if someone else desires them.
This is the definition of genocide. We need to re-examine this
as a scientific and human rights issue, not through the lens of
political partisanship or social engineering.
The Women's Health Protection Act seeks to codify Roe. Do
you all know what Roe does? Roe allows abortion at any time in
pregnancy if it can be justified as benefiting the health of
the woman. ``Health'' is broadly defined as physical,
emotional, social, familial, and age factors, encompassing
almost every stated reason for abortion. This legislation will
hurt, not protect, women because maternal mortality is 76 times
higher after an abortion at five months as compared to two.
Researchers affiliated with the abortion industry have
ignored known limitations in the voluntary U.S. data
collection, publishing papers reassuring us that abortion is
very safe, but better-quality international records linkage
studies demonstrate frequent complications after abortion. We
did not believe the tobacco industry when it told us their
product was safe. Shouldn't we be skeptical of similar claims
from the abortion industry?
About 86,000 abortions occur yearly after the first
trimester when the unborn human might feel pain, and about
11,000 occur after he can survive separated from his mother. We
are one of only seven countries worldwide that will allow an
elective abortion after viability, even though two-thirds of
Americans support restrictions after the first trimester. A
complicated D&E dismemberment abortion may cause uterine damage
or incomplete tissue removal, leading to hemorrhage, infection,
and even death. I will never forget a young Hispanic mother
clinging to my hand in the ICU, pleading with me not to let her
die as her body succumbed to overwhelming sepsis from a late-
term abortion, after Roe. Subsequent pregnancies are also at
risk if instrumental uterine damage leads to abnormal placental
attachment or cervical damage causes pre-term delivery.
Abortion harms the emotional health of some women, leading
to depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and even suicide.
Surely we can acknowledge that not every woman will benefit
from this decision. I have seen many women coerced into
abortion. A young black patient tearfully recalled how her
mother forced her to undergo an abortion at five months
gestation. Now pregnant again, her boyfriend told her she could
not return home until she ended her pregnancy. She strongly
desired both of her children. Does she have a choice? Children
born to unmarried mothers have increased from 11 to 40 percent
of all births since Roe, and this number reaches 67 percent in
the black community. The narrative of her body/her choice has
apparently led many men to believe that the decision to bear a
child belongs to the woman alone, causing them to neglect their
responsibilities as fathers.
In addition to my full-time work as an OB/GYN, I am the
medical director of four pregnancy centers in Texas providing
free ultrasounds, STI testing and treatment, and resources to
women in crisis pregnancies. Any Woman Can in San Antonio also
provides free mental healthcare. The Source Clinics in Houston
and Austin provide full women's healthcare, including
contraception and counseling to promote strong relationships
and healthy sexual behavior.
Abortion is not a choice to be celebrated, but a decision
to be grieved. Children are not a burden to be disposed of, but
a beautiful addition to the life of a family and society. Our
heroes are people who persevere in adversity. Bearing and
raising children is not easy, but without this important work,
a society cannot endure. Let us give motherhood the support and
respect it deserves and stop promoting the destruction of
innocent human life. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Ms. Ross, you are now
recognized for your testimony. Ms. Ross.
[No response.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Please unmute, Ms. Ross.
STATEMENT OF LORETTA ROSS, CO-FOUNDER OF THE REPRODUCTIVE
JUSTICE MOVEMENT, AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF THE STUDY OF WOMEN
AND GENDER, SMITH COLLEGE
Ms. Ross. Thank you for inviting me and hearing me out
today. I don't have written testimony because I feel the need
to speak from my heart because my story disproves many of the
theories that abortion opponents like to talk about.
In 1968, I was pregnant in Texas at 14 years old through
incest from a married cousin who was 27 years old, who, instead
of babysitting me, thought it was a good idea to get me drunk
so he could have sex with me. In 1968, I didn't have any
options. My only choice was whether to have that baby and give
him up for adoption. But I found that once I had my child, I
couldn't go through with the adoption because it is not as easy
as people try to say it is. So for the next 30 years, I ended
up co-parenting with my rapist, and although I fiercely love my
son, I hated his circumstances, and that complicated what my
child should have received, unconditional love from his mother,
because as he grew up and grew to resemble his father, it was
always there what had happened to me.
I was lucky enough two years later to receive a full
scholarship to Howard University to major in chemistry and
physics. And when I became pregnant while at Howard University,
I was also lucky enough to be able to access a legal and safe
abortion at Washington Hospital Center. And that abortion kept
me from becoming a teen mother with three children, because I
was pregnant with twins, at the age of 16. So I didn't have any
choice whether to have sex, whether to have a child, and it was
so hard to raise that child born of rape and incest.
And so, I really don't think it should be more difficult 53
years later for a child in Texas than it was for me in 1968. I
really don't think so. And now I am wondering, is it a matter
of people that don't know our stories, or is it that they don't
care, because 50 years of telling our stories doesn't seem to
change the hard heart of people who haven't been through what
we have been through. And I'm wondering, what does it take?
So in 1994, because of what I'd been through, I was one of
12 black women who created the theory of reproductive justice
because we needed more than what either the pro-choice or the
pro-life movement offered us, with just the right to have the
children that we want to have, the right not to have the
children that we don't want to have, but, most importantly, the
right to raise those children in safe and healthy environments
because nobody focuses as much as we need on what happens to
the children once they are born. And so we have used this
framework. We have popularized it around the country.
I am so honored and privileged to be able to tell my story,
but I am wondering if merely telling my story and all of our
stories is enough because if you don't care, I don't know what
it takes to reach your heart. But I can tell you that theory of
rape and incest--just have the baby and give them up for
adoption, and, you know, accept that your life will be forever
changed--if you have not lived that life, then I wonder if you
really know what you are talking about. And I was very glad
that I had my son, but I also had a choice two years later
whether or not I would become a mother of three children and
sabotage the rest of my life, but mostly, not be able to
provide for the child I already had because he became the most
important thing to me, and I celebrate his life by the fact
that I had choices.
So thank you all for listening to me. I want you all to
talk about what it is really like for people who don't have
choices, who live in Texas, who shouldn't have to go through
what I went through in San Antonio. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you, Professor Ross. Thank you.
And Dr. Moayedi, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF GHAZALEH MOAYEDI, TEXAS-BASED OB/GYN, AND BOARD
MEMBER, PHYSICIANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
Dr. Moayedi. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking
Member Comer, and members of this committee. My name is Dr.
Ghazaleh Moayedi, and I use ``she/her'' pronouns. I am a Board-
certified OB/GYN, the child of Iranian immigrants, a mom, a
Texan, and a proud abortion provider. I want to describe how
different abortion care looks in different parts of our
country. I am a licensed physician who has practiced in both
Hawaii and Texas providing expert abortion care, and although I
am the same physician with the same expert skills and training,
I am compelled by Texas to provide substandard care to patients
in Dallas compared to Honolulu.
Imagine Marie, a 35-year-old American citizen, 18 weeks
pregnant, working a minimum wage job, and living in Dallas.
Marie is seeking an abortion prior to S.B. 8 even being
enacted. She, like most people who have abortions, is already a
parent and resolute in her abortion decision. Although Marie is
confident and informed about her abortion, Marie is forced to
endure multiple harmful restrictions. First, Texas has a law
that requires abortion after 16 weeks to be provided in an
ambulatory surgical center, a requirement that has been proven
to be medically unnecessary and does nothing to improve quality
or safety. By contrast, Hawaii has no such law restricting
where abortion care can be provided. If Marie were able to make
an appointment at one of our two surgical centers in Dallas,
she cannot have her abortion that day. By Texas law, she must
make an appointment to see me, a physician, in advance of her
procedure. As her physician, I am then compelled to force Marie
into a medically unnecessary ultrasound. I'm compelled to force
Marie to look at and listen to the ultrasound. I'm compelled to
force Marie to hear a description of the ultrasound. I'm
compelled to force Marie to hear medically inaccurate state-
mandated scripts.
And after all of this, Marie still cannot have her
abortion. She must return 24 hours later because I am compelled
to force her to wait, even though it is medically unnecessary
and goes against my better judgment as a physician. And if one
of my colleagues is providing care the next day instead of me,
Marie must wait even longer because Texas forces people to have
an abortion from the same physician that provided their
ultrasound. In Honolulu, Marie could call my office for an
appointment in the morning and be going home in the afternoon.
To add insult to injury, Medicaid and private insurance are
barred from covering abortion in Texas. In Hawaii, unless Marie
is a member of the military or a Federal employee, her health
insurance or her Medicaid would cover her costs. If she were
living in Hawaii, Marie would not have to forego food or rent
or childcare to access her abortion. In Texas, Marie will.
Today Marie cannot even get her abortion in Dallas. The
next closest clinic is Oklahoma City, which had a one-month
waiting list for appointments in the weeks prior to S.B. 8
going into effect. So by the time Marie is able to schedule her
appointment, she would be unable to get it in Oklahoma. So now
we are moving in concentric circles, further and further away
from her home, and further and further away from hope. This is
exactly what S.B. 8 intends to do: deny people the ability to
have an abortion, and this is where we are today.
Abortion care has almost completely stopped in our state.
Only a small fraction of patients are able to get the care they
need in Texas. Clinics are working tirelessly to care for
everyone they can within the limits and working with abortion
funds to get everyone else out of the state for care, yet we
know not everyone will be able to leave the state. The impact
of this law is devastating. It is terrifying not only for
people with undesired pregnancies seeking abortion care, but
for anyone with a highly desired pregnancy who has pregnancy
complications.
The consequences are far reaching. Healthcare providers are
confused. My colleagues are asking if they are still allowed to
treat an ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage. They are worried
they will have to delay lifesaving care for people who are very
sick. They're worried about all of the possible chronic
conditions that can worsen in pregnancy, but not worsen enough
to warrant an exception under this law. S.B. 8 has not only
caused a near total abortion ban in Texas. It has made it
extremely dangerous to be pregnant in Texas where our maternal
morbidity and mortality rate is already unconscionably high,
especially for black women and pregnant people of color. Texas
deserves better.
I know firsthand that abortion saves lives. For the
thousands of people I've cared for, abortion is a blessing.
Abortion is an act of love. Abortion is freedom. We need
Federal protection now. We need laws that elevate science and
evidence and recognize the dignity and autonomy of people
accessing care. The Women's Health Protection Act is an
important and critical step, but it's not enough. We need
legislation that will protect pregnant people and birthing
people in all of their decisions so they can live their
healthiest lives. But most of all, we need you to not forget
about us, the people in Texas and other restrictive states, who
are trying our best to care for ourselves, for our families and
our communities amidst its efforts to completely control our
bodies and lives.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Ms. Aziz, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MALEEHA AZIZ, COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, TEXAS EQUAL
ACCESS FUND
Ms. Aziz. Good morning, distinguished members of the
committee. First, I want to begin by thanking Congresswomen
Lee, Jayapal, and Bush for sharing their abortion stories in an
interview last night and on the panel prior to this one. Their
leadership, particularly in this legislative body, is an
inspiration to me. My name is Maleeha Aziz. I am a mother, a
survivor of sexual assault, a proud abortion storyteller with
We Testify, and a community organizer for the Texas Equal
Access Fund.
Before S.B. 8 officially became the law, things were
already dismal, but now they have become a nightmare. Abortion
funds have been working around the clock to help people access
abortions with funding assistance, travel support, and more.
Abortion funds exist to counter the discriminatory, classist,
and racist restrictions on abortion, like the Hyde Amendment
and S.B. 8. The authors of S.B. 8 and the people supporting
this discriminatory and despicable law have made it abundantly
clear that they do not care about our physical and emotional
well-being. They are only interested in controlling our bodies.
As a survivor, I know this feeling all too well, and it
fills me with rage. I remember feeling helpless and disgusted
by my own body for a very long time. Sometimes I still do, and
I am so thankful that I did not become pregnant by my rapist. I
am angry that we survivors must publicly share our traumas to
make legislators realize the depravity of this law. At the
Texas Equal Access Fund, we hear from people all over North
Texas who need support accessing abortions. We hear panicked
and anxious calls from clients who are terrified they will be
forced to remain pregnant.
Over 80 percent of our clients learn about their pregnancy
after eight weeks gestation. That is two weeks beyond the limit
imposed by S.B. 8, forcing them to travel out of state for
care. Texas does not guarantee paid sick leave. That means
those who call T Fund for support are not able to earn a wage
if they miss work for a multi-day medical appointment.
I can relate to what our clients are going through. Nearly
eight years ago, I needed an abortion, too. I was a recent
immigrant to the United States from Pakistan. I was a college
student navigating a new country, culture, and legal system.
After affording housing and food, I did not have a lot of money
left over. Like many people searching for abortion clinics and
needing an ultrasound, I ended up at a fake clinic, also known
as a crisis pregnancy center. Despite wearing lab coats, the
staff were not licensed medical professionals, and Christian
imagery was all over the walls. I'm Muslim and uncomfortable
being judged through a Christian lens. They told me that Texas
banned the abortion pill because it was so dangerous. I
panicked. Thankfully, a supportive family member covered the
cost of my abortion and all the travel-related expenses that I
could not afford.
My partner and I took the next flight to Colorado Springs
where I had my abortion at Planned Parenthood. I still remember
the horrible and vile insults strangers yelled at me as I
walked into the clinic, which I had to endure twice because I
had to wait 24 hours before I could have my abortion. I am
eternally grateful my provider eased my anxiety and calmly
reminded me that I knew what was best for my body. My friends
and family stayed with me for a few days. I felt so cared for
and loved, the way everyone should feel when they are ill or
having an abortion. My procedure, pain medications, flights,
hotel, and transportation cost nearly $2,000. With Federal
policies, like the Hyde Amendment, and state laws that ban
private insurance from covering abortion procedures, we are
left to pay for all of these costs out of pocket, despite
having health insurance.
A year after the birth of my daughter, I recognized the
symptoms of hyperemesis gravidarum, a severe pregnancy sickness
I have experienced with all of my pregnancies. Due to HG, I was
physically unable to care for or spend time with the baby I
chose to have, and it broke my spirit. My husband is active-
duty military and lives four hours away during the week. We
decided that an abortion was the best decision for our family.
The love I have for Maya, my daughter, made my second abortion
the easiest decision that I have ever made. And this time, I
knew abortion pills were both legal and safe in Texas. My
abortion helped me create my family I have now, and for that, I
will forever be grateful. Doing so also made me a better mother
because I chose motherhood on my terms. I welcomed it with open
arms.
Members of Congress, I sit here before you today to ask you
to show up for those of us who have had abortions and provide
abortions. No one should be afraid of seeking healthcare, no
one should be criminally punished for wanting to end their
pregnancies, and no one should fear asking a loved one for
support in a time of need. As we see it, we testify. Everyone
loves someone who has had an abortion. I hope that you listen
to my story and the stories of countless others. The actions
that you take impact your constituents and loved ones who have
had abortions.
Thank you for listening.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. I thank all the panelists.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
Since I have been in Congress, we have never had pro-choice
majorities until this year. Now we have a pro-choice majority
in both chambers, including more than 100 Democratic women. The
American people are solidly on the side of choice with 4 in 5
people supporting legal abortion. Despite this strong support
for abortion rights, right now, anti-choice state legislators
are trying to bulldoze the right to abortion right into the
ground, and we cannot let that happen.
Ms. Steinem, thank you for being here today. You spoke
about your own abortion, and in the early 1970's before Roe v.
Wade, you pioneered the fight for reproductive rights. But what
is happening today puts these five decades of progress at risk.
Ms. Steinem, since Roe v. Wade, has the right to abortion ever
been under greater risk than it is now, than it is today?
[No response.]
Chairwoman Maloney. You need to unmute, Ms. Steinem.
Ms. Steinem. I do not remember any time at greater risk,
and I am sorry to say that I believe it is also connected to a
racial bias in this country because we are at a point when we
are about to become a majority people of color country, which
seems to me a great event in a way. We are going to have better
relationships with other countries in the world, understand
differences better. But I think there is a profoundly racist
resistance to the continuation of the right to safe and legal
abortion, and we see that in the nature of the resistors and
the nature of their politics. It is absolutely fundamental that
we control our own bodies. There is no democracy without that.
We are fighting for the very basis of democracy.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Professor Murray, one of the
most extreme abortion bans in history, Texas' Senate Bill 8,
took effect earlier this month after the Supreme Court refused
to block it. And this December, the Supreme Court will hear
oral arguments in a case examining Mississippi's 15-week
abortion ban. This is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, which
established the constitutional right to abortion. Professor
Murray, how real is the possibility that Roe will fall in the
coming months, and what will happen on the state level if it
does? Professor Murray.
Ms. Murray. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman Maloney.
I think it is very clear, given the Supreme Court's actions in
that September 1st order regarding S.B. 8, Texas' flagrantly
unconstitutional six-week ban on abortion, that there is
certainly a majority on the Court that is receptive to the
prospect of overruling Roe. And certainly the question has been
squarely presented by Mississippi in its briefs before the
Court. Regardless of what the Court does--it could overrule Roe
entirely, it could simply remove viability as a salient marker
in the Court's jurisprudence--but the bottom line is the same.
Reproductive rights across this country will be imperiled. If
Roe is overruled, that will return this question to the states,
and this country will be a patchwork of reproductive access
where some parts of the country will have uneven, if not
abysmal, access to reproductive healthcare while others will
not, and that will have profound implications for poor women,
women of color, LGBT women, women who live in rural areas.
If the Court simply decides that viability is no longer a
salient concept and allegedly saves Roe, what we will have is a
desiccated and hollowed-out right to abortion in which the
states will begin to pass ever-more restrictive laws and test
whether a 12-week ban is permissible, a six-week ban is
permissible. And, again, coming back to S.B. 8, the fact that
we are now considering a six-week ban that is in effect on the
ground in Texas means that the Overton Window about what is
reasonable in terms of abortion restrictions has entirely
shifted.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Professor Ross, you are one
of the original founders of the Reproductive Justice Movement.
If Roe falls, what will it mean for people seeking abortion
care, particularly those for whom care has been historically
pushed out of reach? Professor Ross.
Ms. Ross. What it will mean is that people will have fewer
choices than I had even when I was a teenager in Texas, that
they will become desperate. My parents considered taking me to
Texas and seeing if I could get an abortion there, but they
deemed it wasn't safe. Instead they stuck me in a home, which
was my decision, too, for unwed mothers in San Antonio near
Trinity University because the plan was for me to give my son
up for adoption, and I chose to keep him. And a lot of people
think that because I kept my son born of rape and incest, that
that is why abortion should be illegal or outlawed, but just
because I love my child doesn't mean I wanted to be raped to
have him. And so I think it will be hard on women in Texas.
But I have to say as grassroots reproductive justice
activists who believe that abortion is a human right, we will
do whatever is necessary to save women's lives because we have
got that lived experience, and we are going to have every means
at our disposal to make sure women don't die because people
don't care. But we care.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you all for being here today.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is now recognized for
five minutes. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chair. The toughest discussions we
have up here are the ones, for sure, where the rights of people
we represent seem to be in conflict, and understandably, there
is no shortage of deep emotion surrounding this debate, and
especially for the women, who through no fault of their own,
have found themselves victims of despicable and horrible acts.
Our Declaration of Independence talks about the inalienable
rights that we have as people, among them life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. And it is important that our founders
recognized that these rights, they are not a grant from
government, but they were a gift from God. They preceded our
government, and, therefore, we don't have a right as a
government to limit them. And so when we look at that, we
realize that we can't have liberty, we can't have pursuit of
happiness without the right to life.
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and, of course, much has
changed in the last nearly 50 years. We know a whole lot more
than we did then. Nearly 50 years of scientific advancement
have unveiled to us the amazing miracle of the development of a
child. I asked my mom actually if she had an ultrasound picture
of me, and she said no, and that is pretty common for anyone
who was born when I was born, right around the time when Roe v.
Wade was decided. Ultrasounds were not very common. There
wasn't much we knew about what was going on.
But much has happened since then, and we now know we have
40 ultrasounds now where we can see facial features. We can see
a child's smile. We can see them express emotion and react to
external stimulus. We know a child's heartbeat can be detected
as early as six weeks. In the early 70's when Roe v. Wade was
being discussed, abortion advocates would often call it a blob
of tissue or there was understanding that it was an appendage
of a sort, but now we know so, so, so much more about it.
According to the American College of Pediatricians and the
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, they said
this: ``We now know that the unborn child is a living human
being, rapidly developing from the moment of conception and
capable of feeling pain long before viability. Even in the pre-
viability period, the child's heart beats, the child can
express himself or herself through smiling and other actions,
and the child can respond to the environment outside the womb.
In short, as basic embryology, textbooks now teach life begins
at fertilization, a fact that surprises no one in the medical
profession.'' And so, Dr. Skop, could you speak to the
development of a child who has not been born yet? Is it fair to
consider it still a blob of tissue, or what do we know now that
we didn't know back in 1973?
Dr. Skop. Well, we have beautiful ultrasound that tell us
so much, and, in fact, some people want to call it fetal
cardiac activity instead of a heartbeat, but the blood vessels
exist from about the 16th day after conception. The fetal blood
cells are actually already in place by about 21 days when the
electrical activity that generates the heartbeat is in place,
so the whole system is there and it is running that early.
Within just a few weeks, we can see facial features. We can see
arms, legs. By 9 to 10 weeks, the baby has fingerprints and
fingernails. At 10 weeks, ultrasound tells us if that baby's
going to be left-handed or right-handed. We can see a strong
preference for sucking one thumb over the other, and this all
happens in the first trimester. It is beautiful, and it is
widely available to every American to look on YouTube and to
see how much they look like us at such an early gestational
age.
Mr. Cloud. What about a pre-born baby's ability to feel
pain? What do we know now that we didn't know back in 1973?
Dr. Skop. For a long time, researchers in the field thought
that it was necessary to have a completely formed cerebral
cortex to feel pain. But we now know that the sensory receptors
begin at seven weeks, that the spinal reflex arc, which allows
withdrawal, begins at 10 weeks. A fetus at about 16 weeks who
is undergoing amniocentesis and is actually accidentally stuck
with a needle will do all of the things that we would do if we
experienced pain. It will withdraw from the pain sensation. Its
heart rate will go up. It will release stress hormones. By 20
weeks, the thalamus, the lower part of the brain, is fully
functional and connected to the extremities. And experiments in
infants who don't have complete development of the cerebral
cortex show that they show pain. We can see it on their faces.
When fetal surgery is performed at as young as 18 weeks,
the anesthesiologist always treats the fetus as a separate
patient. He doesn't just give anesthesia to the mother. He
gives specific anesthesia directed to the fetus to help that
fetus not feel pain during that surgery. So certainly by the
time of viability at around 22 weeks, we know that unborn human
being feels pain, and the dismemberment abortion procedure that
is used most commonly at that gestational age has got to result
in excruciating pain to a member of our own species.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton,
she is now recognized for five minutes. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for this
compelling hearing. Before I get to my main questions for the
witnesses, I want to point out how uniquely vulnerable the
reproductive rights of the women I represent in the District of
Columbia are, at least until statehood, because Congress has
control over the District's local affairs. Currently, Congress
prohibits the District from spending its own local funds on
abortion services for low-income women, even though 15 states
use their own funds for this purpose. Future Republican
Congresses could even create a Texas-style bounty law in D.C.,
and if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, Congress could ban
abortion in the District of Columbia. It is more urgent than
ever to make the District the 51st state.
For nearly 50 years now, the Supreme Court has upheld the
right to abortion care. Still, many states have sought to
undermine this constitutional right, including by enacting
trigger bans, and that is going to be the basis of my
questions. These bans would immediately take effect in the
event Roe falls. The Center for Reproductive Rights estimates
that if Roe were to fall, 24 states would likely take action to
ban abortion. That includes 30 states where so-called trigger
bans have been enacted, meaning that abortion would be
immediately outlawed if Roe is overturned by the Supreme Court.
Professor Murray, could you explain how these trigger bans work
and what that would mean for abortion access in these 11
states?
Ms. Murray. Thank you, Representative Norton. Trigger bans
are laws that are already enacted in many of these states that
basically specify that in the event that the Supreme Court
overturns Roe v. Wade, the state will immediately re-
criminalize abortion within its borders, and the effect of
that, of course, would be profound. It would turn vast swaths
of the United States into abortion-free zones, and it would
turn women living in those states into reproductive refugees
having to go to other states in order to seek this kind of
reproductive care. So to the extent we have been discussing in
some quarters the refugee crisis at the southern border, we
will be developing a different kind of refugee crisis within
our country's own borders.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Professor Ross, you are one of the
founding thought leaders of the Reproductive Justice Movement,
which has broadened our understanding of how abortion
restrictions disproportionately harm certain communities. How
would banning abortion further entrench longstanding health
inequities, particularly for communities of color?
Ms. Ross. Thank you for the question. As we found out
through COVID, people who already had inadequate healthcare,
who already had limited life choices, found their lives made
worse when they have to deal with an unexpected health crisis,
and particularly when they have to deal with an unplanned
pregnancy. So for black women, Latina women, indigenous women,
disabled people, people who are already marginalized and
underserved by the existing healthcare system, they will find
their lives made worse. They will find that they have fewer
options, and they will find that they have to go through even
more extraordinary hardships to take care of the children they
already have, to try to find a job or keep a job that they are
already marginalized at.
And I find that people will be extraordinarily desperate
when they have to choose between paying their rent or buying
food or getting an abortion or taking care of the children they
already have. We as mothers, we do whatever is necessary to
take care of our children, and we are trying to do that. And
sometimes I remember with my own child, it meant going without
food so my baby could eat. And so these are the things that
people are asking us to dive deeper into, and it is callous. I
don't even know why 50 years later I am fighting against human
rights violators. I don't know why, but I continue to do so.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair. Once again we find
ourselves here in this committee dealing with issues that we
have absolutely no jurisdiction to associate ourselves with
here. And yet today, the Democrats are trying to convince us
that abortion is a constitutional right, which, you know, look,
arguably you have got about as much constitutional right to
kill an unborn baby as you do your neighbor. It is the preamble
of our Constitution that states clearly that the purpose of our
Constitution is to secure the blessings of liberty for
ourselves and our posterity, which, of course, are those that
are not yet born. Certainly it is not the intent of the
Constitution to kill the unborn and our posterity, but to
secure the blessings of liberty for them. And yet here we are
again.
Madam Chair, we have time and again written letters and
made requests for oversight of the executive branch. We have
serious issues in this country that we have not been able to
have hearings on, from the withdrawal in Afghanistan, to the
southern border where we have COVID coming across the border,
drugs, human trafficking, criminals, terrorists, and who knows
what else, and still no hearings to address those issues.
Inflation, on and on and on. And unless we deal with the
disastrous decisions of this and the horrendous failures of
this Administration, those things are going to continue in our
country.
But here we are dealing with abortion, and I would just say
as a pastor, I have dealt with this for over 25 years. I am
unapologetically pro-life. I have spoken, marched, voted,
listened, prayed on this issue for decades.
I appreciate my colleague, Kat Cammack, for her incredible
testimony earlier this morning. And I have to say I was shocked
last week as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted
against the protection of a baby born alive from a botched
abortion, and yet we are told the baby is somehow the mother's
body. I wonder if that baby lying on the table there is
considered the woman's body and that it is OK to kill that
baby. You know, my colleagues voted in that direction last
week. I have seen over and over and over for decades and have
prayed with, ministered to, and helped women who are suffering
emotionally and physically with the results of abortion, and I
believe this needs to be a major topic, likewise, that is
discussed here. Our Federal Government should not be in the
business of expanding abortions, but in limiting it.
And so, from that, Dr. Skop, I want to thank you for being
here. Your testimony was incredible. From your professional and
scientific opinion/perspective, is it correct to refer to the
baby in the womb as the ``woman's body?''
Dr. Skop. Thank you, Congressman. The baby has his own
genetic makeup, half of which comes from his mother and half
from his father. He is dependent on his mother, and yet
dependency should not be a criteria of who has a right to live
and who may be killed because, I mean, a newborn infant clearly
is dependent. Human beings are very, very dependent for the
early part of their life, unlike many animals. We need our
mothers to care for us, to bring us to birth, and then to care
for us even afterwards. So clearly he is, although part of the
body or in the body, he is no more a part of the woman's body
than a car in the garage is a consistent feature of the garage.
Mr. Hice. OK. And listen, I mean, dependency, it would be
like saying if a toddler fell in a swimming pool, because it is
dependent upon someone else to save it, it is not of value, we
can just let it drown. I mean, we could go down that path.
Dependency is not the issue. It is a separate individual in the
womb. Can you tell us how many women die each year from
abortion procedure complications? Do you have any idea?
Dr. Skop. I cannot tell you that because our country has
very, very poor data on deaths related to abortion. There are
many reasons for this. One is that there is really no clear
Federal mandate to report deaths related to abortion. I am sure
many members of this committee are aware that there is a
maternal mortality crisis in our country across the board, and
studies have documented that probably between 50 and 75 percent
of even maternal deaths that occur related to childbirth,
related to care in a hospital, many of those do not get
reported on the death certificate. And there are various
reasons for that that I probably won't go into. But the CDC
primarily draws their data from death certificates, and they
are ignoring the fact that it is very, very difficult to
document on a death certificate a death, for example, if a
woman has an abortion and commits suicide out of guilt six
weeks later. That will almost never be documented.
Many abortion providers do not maintain hospital
privileges. It is very common--I have seen this in my own
profession when I am taking care of women in the emergency
room--for a woman not to return to the abortion provider if she
has a complication, to come to me. Many times she is ashamed,
and she won't even tell me that it was an abortion that led to
the complication.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. If
you can wrap up.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Skop. Anyway it is very, very poor data, so we do not
know the answer to that question.
Mr. Hice. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Connolly, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you
for holding this hearing. Dr. ``MOY-adi.'' Have I got that name
right?
Dr. Moayedi. Moayedi, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Moayedi. We just heard an exchange about
complications and they are not reported, and the data is vague.
What do you know about complications and deaths from licensed
clinics that provide medically supervised care with respect to
abortions?
Dr. Moayedi. Thank you for that question. I would like to
first remind all OB/GYNs that the American Board of OB/GYNs has
recently warned that spreading medical misinformation can
result in loss of Board certification. It is incorrect----
Mr. Connolly. Can I just interrupt you there?
Dr. Moayedi. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Connolly. Did you just hear misinformation?
Dr. Moayedi. I did just hear misinformation.
Mr. Connolly. So for the record, Madam Chairwoman, we just
heard misinformation according to Dr. Moayedi. Go ahead.
Dr. Moayedi. It is incorrect that this data is not tracked
appropriately, and, in fact, in our state of Texas, this data
is tracked from a clinic level, and it is actually legally
required that every single day we report to the state who has
had abortions and if they have had any complications. And, in
fact, now the state has passed a new law that I have to report
complications that are not even related to abortion care that
might happen 20 years later in a person's life.
Mr. Connolly. So, couldn't one make the opposite argument
Dr. Skop just made that, as a matter of fact, by closing
clinics and making it difficult to get a legal abortion, which
is legal in America, actually we are, Texas, for example, is
endangering the lives of women seeking a safe clinical
procedure in a clinic that is licensed?
Dr. Moayedi. Exactly. We don't even need to make that
argument. It is actually medical fact. We know----
Mr. Connolly. It is a medical fact.
Dr. Moayedi. It is a medical fact. We know that when people
do not have access to abortion care, that maternal morbidity
and mortality rates rise, and that is a global fact.
Mr. Connolly. So would it be fair, in your opinion, to say,
frankly, the new Texas law is endangering the lives of women?
Dr. Moayedi. Yes, sir. That is exactly what I said in my
testimony.
Mr. Connolly. And what kinds of requirements has the state
of Texas imposed or attempted to impose on abortion providers
and the facilities where they work?
Dr. Moayedi. We have numerous medically unnecessary laws,
and that is not just my opinion. The National Academies of
Sciences has shown in an unbiased, nonpartisan report that
these laws are medically unnecessary and harm people. So in
Texas, for example, first of all, a physician must provide
abortion care even though we have good evidence that you don't
need a physician to hand someone a pill or provide first-
trimester abortion care. In Texas, you must make an
appointment, and that appointment, you have to come in and have
a medically unnecessary ultrasound. That ultrasound has to be
provided by the same physician that is going to perform the
abortion. There is no reason that an ultrasound and the same
physician increase safety at all. They have to wait 24 hours
between the time that they get their ultrasound and the time
that they get their abortion. The same physician has to do it.
You have to be at least 18 years old. Otherwise, you need to
get parental consent. You need to have an ID to be able to show
it in the clinic.
You need to be able to access a clinic, right? We don't
have enough clinics in our state, and if you live anywhere
along our southern border, that access has been gone for quite
a while. The state restricts me practicing evidence-based care,
so the state does not allow me to provide medication abortion
past 10 weeks, even though we have good evidence from around
the world that medication abortion is safe to provide after 10
weeks. The state requires that I physically hand the patient
the pill, even though all of us in this room, physician or not,
can know that you don't need a physician to give you a pill.
Mr. Connolly. Let me just interrupt you there. I mean, what
you have just described, to me, sounds like an over-regulated
regime in Texas making it very, very difficult for a woman to
access legal medical care with respect to abortion. And I find
it ironic that the same people who say wearing a mask
compromises my personal autonomy have no compunction about
imposing on women in this country and in the state of Texas
some of the most restrictive legislation governing the most
sacred autonomy possible: control over your own body.
Briefly, Ms. Aziz, to make it all special, the Texas law
allows vigilantes and gives them bounties. How is that
affecting you in your work? And then I yield, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Aziz. Thank you for your question. As I mentioned in my
testimony, we have a lot of panicked callers that are very
scared that they are going to be forced to remain pregnant
against their wishes. You know, as you said, that is basic
autonomy. It is very difficult to navigate because no one could
have imagined that something like this would ever happen, you
know, bounty hunting, vigilantism. Anybody, you know, just
because they want the money can bring about a frivolous lawsuit
against somebody, you know, against someone's family member or
someone's friend who is trying to support them in having an
abortion. It is completely ridiculous. And abortion is
healthcare, and every person deserves equitable and fair access
to an abortion.
Mr. Connolly. We are back to the wild west in Texas. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, is recognized for
five minutes. Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Dr. Skop, you were
just accused of spreading misinformation. Would you like to
address that comment, please?
Dr. Skop. Thank you, Congressman, for the opportunity. I
think that there is data available to support everything that I
have said today, and I have provided references to the
committee of what I have said. It is unfortunate that the
politicization of this issue has affected the medical
organizations as well. But as an OB/GYN, I went into this
practice to care for two patients--a woman and her unborn
child--and I continue because in my conscience, I cannot do
otherwise than to advocate for the life and health of both of
my patients. And that is the right thing to do.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I agree with you, and we are seeing that
same discussion here, you know, with what we claim to be a
science within the COVID-19 discussion as well. So now, as a
healthcare provider, we all know that patient autonomy is the
foundation of all healthcare decisions. Informed consent
respects that doctrine. I don't agree that abortion is
healthcare, but assuming it is, all pregnant women receiving an
abortion death pill should be told of the risk of the toxic
brew they are swallowing, including the impact to future
fertility. To your knowledge, are women being told that by
taking this pill, they may impact their future fertility and
not be able to have children in the future? And if not, can you
discuss these ramifications?
Dr. Skop. I do not know specifically what is being said in
abortion clinics, but I do know that many states have mandated
the discussion of complications. And, in fact, the FDA, under
its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, mandated
discussion of complications as well. What we do know and what I
have seen frequently in the emergency room when I have cared
for women having complications from medical abortions, is that
it results in complications very frequently. Records linkage
studies from Europe tell us that medical abortions have
complications four times as frequently as surgical abortions.
Very good studies and meta-analyses tell us that between 5 and
8 percent of women who receive a medical abortion do not pass
the tissue completely or hemorrhage and require surgical
completion usually with a D&C. I do not know how many women
understand that they have between a 1 in 12 and 1 in 20 chance
of requiring a surgery in addition to the medical abortion
pills that they receive.
I think the number of medical abortions as a percentage of
abortions is going up dramatically, particularly in response to
COVID. I think there is a very good possibility if women
understood the high risk of complications, that they might opt
for surgical abortions instead. So the numbers of medical
abortions are concerning. Additionally, the FDA, because of
COVID, removed the in-person requirement for medical abortion
dispensing, which means that a woman does not need to have an
ultrasound to find out exactly how far along she is. I have
seen many women who perhaps underestimate their gestational
age. They are at much higher risk to fail if they are at a more
advanced gestational age. They are no longer making sure that
that is not a pregnancy outside of the uterus that could
rupture because medical abortion pills do not affect a
pregnancy in the tube, and women have died from that. They do
not evaluate RH status, in which case a woman may in a future
pregnancy, if she needed the RhoGAM injection and did not get
it, she can form an immune response to her future children. And
14 percent of those children, if they are untreated, will be
stillborn. Half will suffer neonatal death or brain injury.
There are some very significant complications that can occur
with unsupervised medical abortion, and for some reason the FDA
is choosing to look the other way on that.
Mr. Gosar. So let me get this right. I have just limited
time. There are preoperative screening complications if we
don't screen, and there are complications post-abortion based
upon those same screenings or additional factors.
Dr. Skop. That is correct. There is a lot that women
probably do not know.
Mr. Gosar. Got you. Well, I have very limited time. I will
yield back. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Krishnamoorthi, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you so much, Chairwoman, and I
appreciate you holding this very important hearing. Dr. Skop, I
have a question for you. S.B. 8 prohibits abortions of a fetus
after a ``detectable fetal heartbeat,'' correct?
Dr. Skop. That is correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you supported and testified in
support of S.B. 8 at a March Texas State Senate hearing, right?
Dr. Skop. I was at a State Senate hearing. I was testifying
particularly about the medical abortion limitations. I may have
submitted a written testimony, but I don't recall that I
testified verbally.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. But you support S.B. 8, correct?
Dr. Skop. I support the ability of a state to legislate the
procedure of abortion in accordance with the will of the
people.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, let me ask you this. I read the
whole text of S.B. 8, and in here it does not have an exception
even in the case of rape, correct?
Dr. Skop. That is probably correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And it doesn't have an exception even
in the case of incest, right?
Dr. Skop. That is correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, my wife and I have a daughter, Dr.
Skop, and one of our greatest fears in life is that she would
be sexually assaulted or raped. Now, I understand that you have
a daughter, right?
Dr. Skop. I do have a daughter.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. If, God forbid, your daughter were
raped, do you believe that your daughter should be forced to
carry the fetus to term?
Dr. Skop. And I just want to say for the record that the
stories that I have heard from women today of their abortions
make me very sad. I feel for every woman that has been through
that horrendous situation and had to make that horrendous
decision. I am working for a world where women do not ever have
to address that decision. But I would say that in the case of a
rape, women generally know that they have been raped, and a
woman can find out that she is pregnant----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I am just asking you a simple question,
Dr. Skop. Even after a detectable fetal heartbeat under S.B. 8,
were your daughter raped, would you believe that she should be
forced to carry the baby to term as required by S.B. 8?
Dr. Skop. S.B. 8 gives enough time for a woman who knows
she has been raped to determine that she is pregnant.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No, I am asking in the case after a
detectable fetal heartbeat. After the detectable fetal
heartbeat. I am just asking a very simple question. At that
point, is it your testimony that you believe that your daughter
should be forced to carry the baby to term even in the case of
rape?
Dr. Skop. If my daughter were pregnant as a result of rape,
that would be extraordinarily sad, and I think that is evidence
of the broken world that we are living in.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Ma'am, you don't want to answer the
question. You are being evasive, and this is the hypocrisy
which characterizes people like you having an opinion as to how
you would treat your own daughter but forcing other daughters
and sisters and women in the state of Texas to go through a
wholly, entirely different experience. In 2019, the Texas
Department of Safety reported more than 14,000 rapes in the
state of Texas, and most experts believe, unfortunately, the
actual number of rapes far surpasses the number of reported
rapes. Now, ma'am, do you believe that after a fetal heartbeat
is detected, there should be any exception for rape or incest?
Dr. Skop. I think there is adequate time in this law for a
woman who has been raped to discover that she is pregnant, and
if she wants to terminate the pregnancy, I think that she has
time to do it.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You are not answering the question,
ma'am. After the detectable fetal heartbeat has been supposedly
ascertained under the statute. It appears that you don't
believe that there should be an exception for rape or incest,
and that goes directly contrary to what Donald Trump said. He
said, ``I am strongly pro-life with three exceptions: rape,
incest, and protecting the life of the mother, the same
position taken by Ronald Reagan.''
Now, let me talk about Governor Abbott. When he was asked
about forcing women to carry their fetuses to term in the case
of rape, he said, ``Texas will work tirelessly to make sure
that we eliminate all rapists.'' Now, ma'am, you don't believe
that S.B. 8 is going to result in the elimination of rape in
Texas, do you?
Dr. Skop. No, of course not.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you don't believe that incest will
be eliminated in Texas either.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, his time has expired.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. She can----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. She can answer.
Dr. Skop. The heartbeat indicates an independent human
life, and as a pro-life physician who advocates for the fetus
as well as the mother, that human life should be allowed to
continue.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Unresponsive. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlewoman North Carolina, Mrs. Foxx, you are
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to thank
you for the way you have handled yourself in this hearing. But
I want to thank Dr. Skop for being willing to put up with some
very disrespectful questioning and a very, very disrespectful
attitude toward you. We really appreciate that. Thank you very
much for doing that. Dr. Skop, have you seen many examples of
premature babies born around 22 to 24 weeks who go on to lead
healthy lives after receiving treatment, and have you seen the
age of these patients decrease as science has advanced?
Dr. Skop. Thank you, Congresswoman. I have. I have been
practicing for 25 years. Around the time that I started, I
think that we considered viability the age at which you could
likely resuscitate a baby, that he would have a, you know, a
good chance at survival at around 25, 26 weeks. Currently, we
are seeing babies saved in our hospital at 22 weeks,
extraordinarily fragile, extraordinarily sad, heartbreaking for
the mothers. Many times I have seen this in association with a
shortened cervix, which good studies show us is associated with
abortion, particularly multiple abortions. So sadly, women
don't know that their choice they make today may cause them to
have an extremely premature baby who clings to life later.
Ms. Foxx. Do you believe that the age of viability will get
younger as we continue to make scientific and medical progress?
Dr. Skop. I think it may get a little younger. I think that
there is going to be a physical constraint at the point at
which the alveoli, where the oxygen comes in, and the blood
vessels that flow through the lungs, can actually pass oxygen.
So there may be a hard limit, but it is amazing that we are
saving so many babies at just a little over halfway through a
pregnancy.
Ms. Foxx. Yes. Dr. Skop, in an amicus brief submitted to
the Supreme Court as it considers the Dobbs v. Jackson case,
375 women shared in sworn affidavits how they were injured by
second and third tri-semester, late-term abortions. Madam
Chair, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the
amicus and appendix recording the experiences of these women.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Dr. Skop, have you encountered women
in your work who have had similar experiences?
Dr. Skop. I think that a late abortion is exceedingly
emotionally traumatic for a woman. She has felt the baby
moving. Regardless of her circumstances, that has got to be the
hardest decision to make. They are very dangerous. I will tell
you something else that I am concerned about. I mentioned
coercion. If we have abortion without limits for any reason in
this country until birth, a woman who is being coerced toward
an abortion has nine months to fight for the life of her baby.
I think many women who have late abortions are women who just
got tired of saying no, no, no, I want to keep my baby, which
is terribly tragic.
One thing that I have seen in Texas from the pregnancy
centers that I work with is that women come in for ultrasounds,
and when they see the heartbeat, they are very happy because
they now know that their boyfriend or their mother cannot
coerce them into an abortion because it is illegal. The earlier
we set limits, the more we are protecting women from that
coercion of losing the baby that they want to carry.
Ms. Foxx. Right. And we see this in the crisis pregnancy
centers all over the country. Dr. Skop, I am going to give you
just a few more seconds. I know you have corrected the record
at least once since I have been listening. There are many
things that have been said today that have not been true, and I
wanted to see if you would like to correct any more falsehoods
that have been said.
Dr. Skop. I must speak to the statement that was made that
pro-life people are racist because we do not want the Hyde
Amendment to be overturned and for the government to pay for
abortions of children of color. The flip side that we should be
considering is that black women have more than three times the
abortions of white women. People may not recognize it, but
there has got to be a eugenic component here. In the civil
rights era of the 1960's, there were approximately 18 million
black people in America. Since Roe, approximately 18 million
black babies have been aborted. It is not racist to want to
save those children.
Ms. Foxx. That is a very eloquent statement. And we all
know that Planned Parenthood was begun in order to kill black
babies and other children who were unborn that they felt were
unfit for this world, and it is important people understand the
history of Planned Parenthood.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Raskin, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Women in the United
States have had a constitutional right to an abortion since
1973, and that is not an argument. That is an old-fashioned
thing called a fact. Since the middle of the 20th century,
American women have been free to make their own decisions with
respect to abortion, and this is as it should be, for every
woman's situation is unique, as we have heard from women
witnesses on both sides of the aisle today. Some women are 32
and have become pregnant by choice and are hoping to have a
baby. Others are 19 and become pregnant by rape, abuse, or
incest, and would never consent to bear their rapist's or
abuser's child. Some have the private resources and personal
health necessary to raise many children. Others are
impoverished, ill, depressed, in emotional or mental crisis,
and could not seriously contemplate it.
The point is every woman's situation is completely
different and deeply personal. So the real question before us
in America today is, who is going to decide for the women of
America? Is it the women of America, or is it state
legislators, 69 percent of whom are men? That is the question.
Who is going to make these most private and intimate decisions?
I know that every member of the committee on the other side
opposes Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to privacy,
but I wonder if any of them are willing to actually defend the
details of the new Texas law.
It not only makes it unlawful for a woman to have an
abortion after six weeks when most women don't even know they
are pregnant. It deputizes every person in the United States
from all 50 states, including rapists, and sexual harassers,
and insurrectionists, and murderers, everyone including
snooping and spiteful neighbors, feuding relatives, to go out
and sue the doctors, the nurses, the medical personnel, and
family members who dare to help their daughter, or niece, or
sister, or mother through a health crisis, and they can sue
them for $10,000 under Texas state law today. That is America
in the 21st century today with the constitutional right to
privacy under attack.
This is our future and our present in the nightmare
Orwellian world that the GOP wants to deliver to us, but our
friends don't want to speak about the specifics. So I want to
ask specifically every single witness here, do you think the
law should be changed in America so women and girls who are
raped can be forced to bear their rapist's child as under the
Texas law? Do you think the law should be changed so women and
girls who are raped can be forced by the state to bear their
rapist's child as under the Texas law? And I will begin with
Ms. Steinem if she is still out there.
[No response.]
Mr. Raskin. OK. Then, Ms. Aziz, I come to you. Just ``yes''
or ``no,'' if you can. Should the law be changed so that women
and girls who are raped can be forced to bear their rapist's
child?
Ms. Aziz. As a survivor, I can't fathom the thought of
having to carry my rapist's child, and no one should have to do
that.
Mr. Raskin. So your answer is, no, it should not be
changed. OK. Dr. Moayedi.
Dr. Moayedi. No.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. Dr. Skop.
Dr. Skop. No, I don't want to see the law changed. I want
to see people's hearts and minds changed about this unborn
human.
Mr. Raskin. OK. So I take it your position then is Roe v.
Wade has it right, the woman has a constitutional right to
privacy, but we should engage in the old-fashioned American
arts of persuasion of trying to convince people to our point of
view about an intensely private decision like this.
Dr. Skop. Thank you. That is why I am here today.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. Professor Murray, what
about you?
Ms. Murray. No.
Mr. Raskin. OK. And, Ms. Ross, what about you? I don't know
if she is still there.
Ms. Ross. The answer is obvious. No, because my son had a
complicated life getting to know his pedophile father and the
fact that I had to deal with this man re-raping me emotionally
just to raise my child. That is an obvious no.
Mr. Raskin. Well, Ms. Ross, I want to thank you especially
for your testimony. I want to thank all the witnesses, but you
have really made vivid for the United States what we are
talking about here, which is every woman's situation is
different. Every family's situation is different. And the
Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey
made this a personal decision, and the doctrine has changed
from one of the trimester framework. By the way, everyone
saying you can have an abortion up to nine months, that is
deranged. That has got nothing to do with the law in the United
States under Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which
draws the line at fetal viability.
But I just want to say every witness here on both sides now
seems to agree that the Texas law is deeply flawed, if not
completely unconstitutional, in impinging on the woman's right
to choose and compelling her to go ahead and bear her rapist's,
or her abuser's, or her assailant's child against her will. And
that is an outrage and that is a scandal. That is totalitarian.
Let's go back to the constitutional right to privacy, and let's
have the discussion. People can try to engage with each other
and move each other, and I thank Dr. Skop for that point, but
let's not trample on the constitutional rights of the people. I
yield back to you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Higgins, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. From my heart, I feel
the pain of my fellow Americans on both sides of the aisle,
this issue. We will all answer for our sins. All of us fall
short of the glory of God. I am no exception. I have lived at
times in rebellion against God, and for every sinful act, I
will kneel before our Lord and Savior. Over the course of my 60
years, I have failed and fallen in ways that bring shame upon
my heart and soul. I have been callous and uncaring. I have
lacked compassion and I have broken promises. I have been at
times a bad son, an unworthy brother, a poor father, and a
failed husband. I have lived and, thus, I have sinned.
America is an anointed Nation, and as such, our republic
will move forward according to God's will, and our Nation will
evolve in our Savior's own time. I stand in judgment of no man.
Judgment is of the Lord. As a child of God now in my life,
obedient to His path, I will fight to protect the innocent with
every fiber of my being and every power of my spirit.
Ultimately, God's will will imbue itself into American society
deep from our heart, as has been mentioned here today.
America's laws ultimately will reflect God's love for his
unborn children. Until that time, some of us will never rest in
our battle to protect the most vulnerable amongst us: the
precious and innocent children of the womb.
This has been a meaningful and insightful hearing. I am
moved by the testimony of our witnesses today, and I have faith
and confidence in the future of our Nation. Divided though we
be on this issue, I believe ultimately, my brothers and
sisters, that we are in God's hands and we will move forward
according to His will. Madam Chair, I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from California, Mr. Rho Khanna, is recognized for
five minutes.
[No response.]
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman needs to unmute.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I just
want to take 30 seconds to correct the record. Representative
Foxx suggested, this absurd suggestion that Planned Parenthood
was somehow conceived to encourage abortions in the African-
American community. I suggest reading an 8th-grade history book
as a starter. First of all, abortion wasn't even legal when
Planned Parenthood was founded in 1919. Originally, it was
founded to encourage birth control by Margaret Sanger, and
W.E.B. Dubois, one of the great civil rights leaders, was an
adviser to Sanger. So, you know, it is fine to have ideological
differences, but it is really sad that people are saying things
that are a misreading of American history. It is, frankly,
pretty unpatriotic that you don't take the time to read
American history and are creating false impressions. And this
is why I think, you know, I am such a believer in civic
education, historic education, and it is sad to me my
colleagues wouldn't just open up an 8th-grade history book
first to get some basic facts.
With that, let me turn to Dr. Skop. Dr. Skop, do you
believe that homosexual behavior should be criminalized?
Voice. Where did that come from?
Dr. Skop. No, of course not.
Mr. Khanna. OK. And do you believe that same-sex marriage
is OK, I mean, legal, or are you against same-sex marriage?
Dr. Skop. You know, at this point, I think our country has
decided that decision, and I really have no opinion to weigh
in.
Mr. Khanna. You wouldn't be opposed to it, though. It
wouldn't be something you strongly oppose.
Dr. Skop. Well, I think that what you are talking about is
activity between----
Mr. Khanna. That is just a simple ``yes'' or ``no,'' Dr.
Skop. I am not trying to trick you. I mean, are you neutral
toward it, against it, for it?
Dr. Skop. To same----
Mr. Khanna. Legally. Do you think people should have the
legal right to same-sex marriage?
Dr. Skop. Well, I think they do, so I----
Mr. Khanna. And you are fine with that. You think that is
fine.
Dr. Skop. That is a decision our country has made and----
Mr. Khanna. OK. Well, I guess my question is, do you
support the Texas Right to Life Group?
Dr. Skop. I am not sure. Are you asking me if I financially
support or if I just support----
Mr. Khanna. Well, just are you sympathetic to what they----
Dr. Skop. Well, there are different----
Mr. Khanna. It is a ``yes'' or ``no,'' Dr. Skop. Are you
sympathetic? I mean, I assume that----
Dr. Skop. Well, there are differences of opinions within
the pro-life community just as I am sure there are within the
pro-choice community. I think they did a heroic thing, and,
again, I am proud that Texas is the first state that has been
able to----
Mr. Khanna. OK. So here is my question to you.
Dr. Skop [continuing]. Enforce a restriction.
Mr. Khanna. And I hope you will condemn this. So Texas
former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell, who has filed
an amicus brief on behalf of this group, Texas Right to Life,
in the Dobbs case, the group that you described as heroic. The
brief argues that ``homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage
are 'Court-invented rights.' These rights, like the right to
abortion through Roe, are judicial concoctions, and there is no
source of law that can be invoked to salvage their existence.''
The amicus brief is asking the Court to overturn Lawrence v.
Texas and Obergefell, meaning, basically, they want to
criminalize homosexual behavior again, and they want to take
away same-sex marriage. Can you today unequivocally denounce
that amicus brief and say how embarrassed you are, given your
beliefs, that they would put something like that to the Supreme
Court?
Dr. Skop. I really have no opinion on that statement. I
don't think it relates to the issue of abortion.
Mr. Khanna. Well, of course it does. They are putting an
amicus brief in the name of Texas Right to Life, and part of
their argument for overturning Roe v. Wade is linked to issues
of LGBTQI equality. Does that concern you that that groups, in
the name of defending S.B. 8, are trying to overturn Obergefell
and Lawrence?
Dr. Skop. I have no opinion on that. I wonder, could I
clarify what Congresswoman Foxx said that you mentioned about
Margaret Sanger?
Mr. Khanna. You can do that on someone else's time.
Dr. Skop. OK.
Mr. Khanna. But what I really want to know, if you don't
find any embarrassment in the fact that you have briefs written
in part of the pro-life movement that are basically advocating
for the criminalization of homosexuality, are you even aware
that these briefs are being written seeking that in the Court,
in the case law?
Dr. Skop. I don't see how that pertains. I would imagine
there are briefs written in support of Roe that may contain
facts that you might find potentially controversial, so I----
Mr. Khanna. Well, these are facts. This is central to the--
--
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, his time has expired. Perhaps
Representative Khanna----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Comer--could suggest having a hearing on homosexuality
after your hearings on white supremacy and----
Chairwoman Maloney. Does the gentleman yield back? His time
has expired.
Mr. Comer [continuing]. Whatever else you are going to do--
--
Mr. Raskin. Order. Order.
Mr. Comer [continuing]. That has nothing to do with
oversight.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Madam Chair? Madam Chair? I have a
point of parliamentary inquiry.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair,
with respect to the gentleman from Louisiana, my understanding
of the way we run this committee is that it is the chair that
decides when an individual's time has expired, and the
gentleman should have his have his mic muted and is out of
order when chiming in to tell you when someone's time has
expired.
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, you are right.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Isn't that correct?
Chairwoman Maloney. You are correct.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So I would ask the gentleman----
Mr. Higgins. The gentleman from Louisiana didn't speak.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Excuse me. Excuse me. The floor is
mine at the moment. Forgive me if I made reference to the wrong
person, but whoever has been calling out is out of order, Madam
Chair, and it is you that controls the time and tells members
when their time has expired.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, we are all trying to stick to the
five-minute rule.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. I would just ask that members
refrain, or you make sure members refrain from telling you when
that is, and that we follow procedure so that you can manage
the time. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlewoman from South
Carolina, Ms. Mace, is now recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I just want
to thank everyone who testified today, our witnesses with your
medical background. I know many of us are very passionate about
many different issues, but there were many women today that
testified before us about their own struggles with rape, their
own struggles with sexual assault, and the lifelong pain and
trauma that it brings to us both physically, emotionally, and
mentally, but the stories this morning that we heard are
remarkable and they are painful. I told my rape story 2 or 3
years ago as a state lawmaker when South Carolina was doing its
own fetal heartbeat bill, and today, I believe we are still one
of the only states in the country that has a fetal heartbeat
bill, with exceptions for women who have been raped and for
victims of incest because I told that story. And so I am pro-
life and regardless of the circumstances.
When you are raped, it is traumatic, and we have a right to
make that decision for ourselves, but at some point, these
cells become a human and become a child inside a woman's womb.
And so the other thing that I think about this morning, it
pains me to hear these stories because too often too many women
have those same stories, and it is offensive as I sit here as a
woman, as a victim of rape, and hear some of my colleagues
question one of our physicians here today about what she would
do if her daughter was raped. I can't even tell you the
unimaginable anger and pain that I have as a woman when someone
wants to make that kind of hypothetical example. This isn't
something to toy with. We should not be having this hearing for
political PR purposes for the next, you know, fundraising
scheme on social media. This is a serious issue, and it affects
women who are Republican and Democrat alike.
This is not a joke, and there are kids out there that are
victims of incest. There are women out there who are dealing
with this for a lifetime. And I don't hear any of my
colleagues--I don't care if you are a Republican or Democrat--
sit there and have a hypothetical question to women who are
here today, asking them what you would do if your child was
raped. I find it offensive and disgusting.
The second thing I want to say this morning is that gay
marriage has nothing to do with abortion or their right to life
in this country, and it has already been decided by the Supreme
Court. We are all adults in the room, and I hope that all of us
support the rights. If you want to be happily or be miserably
married like anybody else, you have the right to do that.
Third and finally, I sit here today, and Lieutenant Colonel
Scheller is sitting in a brig. He is the only person that has
been put away without a charge or a sentence or a conviction on
Afghanistan for exercising a right to speak out and potentially
be a whistleblower and expressing his frustrations as a
soldier. I saw yesterday and Tuesday this week in the Senate
and House hearings the blame game going on in Afghanistan. We
have billions of dollars that we just left of equipment to the
Taliban who are selling it to Iran and God knows who else. We
have a Cabinet that is saying one thing and a President that is
saying another. I then, as I am sitting here, seeing an email
come across my desk that says reportedly the Department of
Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas is wondering if we can,
you know, accommodate between 350-and 400,000 illegal
immigrants at the border, if we can account for those illegal
apprehensions, if we get away or do away with Title 42.
Meanwhile, our Border Patrol agents are being threatened to be
fired if they don't get a vaccination.
And so I ask this question, what the hell is going on here
today? We don't have oversight over state abortion rights. This
is not the purpose of this committee, and I yield back. Thank
you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. The
gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, is recognized for
five minutes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. You
know, I need to correct and address an assertion that was made
not too long ago, this idea, this myth that, first of all, that
this law, S.B. 8, provides ample time for a victim of abuse to
seek abortion care because, once again, we are in a room of
legislators who are attempting to legislate reproductive
systems that they know nothing about. Six weeks pregnant, and
it is shameful that this education even needs to happen because
this conversation shouldn't even be held in a legislative body.
Six weeks pregnant is two weeks late for one's period. When you
are raped, you don't always know what happened to you, and I
speak about this as a survivor. You are in so much shock.
And by the way people, who commit abuse, and victims and
survivors of sexual assault are overwhelmingly assaulted by
someone they know. And this myth that it is some person lurking
on a street or in a parking lot waiting to sexually assault
you, that myth only benefits the abusers in power that want you
to think that that is how it happens. It is your friend. It is
a boyfriend. It is a boss. It is a legislator. You are in so
much shock at what happened to you, sometimes it takes years to
realize what actually went on.
So this idea that victims know in the two weeks that they
might be late for their period? I am a buck-15. I am 115
pounds. You look at me funny, I am two weeks late for my
period, and you are supposed to expect me to know that I am
pregnant? Or the stress of a sexual assault, that makes you two
weeks late for your period, whether you are pregnant or not.
Unbelievable. Unbelievable that the Republican side will call a
witness, so irresponsible and hurtful to survivors across this
country, honestly. You deserve your constituents an apology.
Now, Professor Ross, yes or no. Is it a common tactic for
an abuser to sabotage their partner's birth control? Are you
on?
Chairwoman Maloney. Turn on your mic.
Ms. Ross. Yes. They keep silencing my mic. I am not. Yes, I
hear it all the time. I have heard it from women, particularly
when they are in the control or power of their abuser.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now----
Ms. Ross. They do it all the time, and we have seen people
who are forced to continue pregnancies, and we have seen people
who are forced and coerced into having an abortion. And that is
why it has to be the woman's choice and not people with power
over her.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Professor. And so as you
said, it is a very common tactic for an abuser to sabotage a
partner's birth control, a victim's birth control. Now, in your
advocacy experience, would you say that abusers often do this
to intentionally try to get their partners pregnant without
sometimes their knowledge?
Ms. Ross. Yes, that has happened. Now, in my case, I don't
think my abuser, my rapist, married cousin, wanted me to be
pregnant because he ran as soon as he found out that my father
knew. But I do hear women's stories all the time----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And----
Ms. Ross [continuing]. And there are so many circumstances.
You can't come up with one story that fits all those different
circumstances.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Professor. And we, you know,
can see, that abusers will sabotage their partners' birth
control in an effort to exert power and control over them. Dr.
Moayedi, when we see that the tactics of abusers on a personal
level, the attempt to control and sabotage a victim's
reproductive care and control over themselves, then becomes
mass adopted by overwhelmingly, frankly, cisgender male state
legislatures, do you see a connection between these abuse
dynamics in person and how they inform a culture in which they
could be affirmed, or in which these laws could potentially
help or assist abusers in this dynamic?
Dr. Moayedi. Yes. So unfortunately, our country is actually
founded on reproductive control and coercion of enslaved
Africans and of indigenous people. So this is actually a
historical tactic in our country and a method of upholding
white supremacy. So that has not changed and continues today.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much, Doctor. My time has
expired. I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Clyde, is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, it
is quite evident that this hearing is strategically placed to
distract from the massive $4.3 trillion spending bill that the
Democrats want to hide from the American people, a bill that
will further bankrupt our country, saddle us with trillions
more in debt, and create Federal programs that fundamentally
change America into a big-government, socialist Nation. That is
because the Democrats passed their bill, H.R. 3755, that
pertains to today's topic last week. We hold hearings to gather
expert input on bills before they pass, not after they are
passed unless it is for messaging purposes only, and that is
exactly what we are doing.
But we are here attending a hearing called ``Examining the
Urgent Need to Expand Abortion Rights and Access.'' Let's be
clear. Abortion is neither healthcare nor is it a
constitutional right. Life is the constitutional right. An
abortion procedure ends a life. It ends the heartbeat of a
precious child in the womb, and such violence is never
acceptable or protected under our Constitution. Dr. Skop, if
you want an opportunity to respond to that personal attack, I
will give you one for a moment.
Dr. Skop. Thank you for that opportunity, but I am not
offended. There is so much pain on both sides of this issue,
and if we all come away with one point from this hearing, it is
that we are not going to legislate, we are not going to find a
solution that is going to make everybody happy. Our country
needs to improve its behavior. We need to stop allowing rapists
to run amok. We need to provide effective contraception, which,
by the way, there is long-acting reversible contraception that
is extraordinarily effective and has been proven, and I am sure
you would agree with me, in large-scale studies to prevent
abortion by keeping women from getting pregnant.
We need to prioritize relationships. Most women who seek
abortion, if they tell the father of the baby about their
pregnancy--I have seen this time and time again--what they are
secretly hoping for is that he will say is, ``You know what? I
love you. I will marry you. The circumstances may not be good,
we may not have much money, but we are going to make it work.''
That is what women want, and what they are getting instead is,
here is $600 and Planned Parenthood is down the street. All of
this has to change.
Mr. Clyde. Wow. Wow. Wow. Thank you. Thank you for being
here today. You know, you mentioned in your testimony that you
have delivered over 5,000 babies in the past 29 years. Surely
you have seen technology come a long way since your beginning
days as an OB/GYN. Could you describe briefly the impact this
technology has had on improving the viability of unborn
children for those born prematurely?
Dr. Skop. It is amazing. I believe one of the witnesses
earlier today was discussing her child that she could hold in
her hand, but they are perfect. They are perfectly formed. They
feel pain. Many times, many times at 22 weeks, half of these
babies can survive, and many of them have an intact survival,
but that is not to say that it is not a lot of pain involved in
that. I mean, how horrible to have a child and you don't know
if they are going to live or die, or maybe they have a life
full of struggle. So it is amazing that we can do what we can
do, but at the same time, maybe we can start looking into some
of the things that cause these young babies to be born. And in
many cases, it is cervical damage because abortion is so
common.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you. In previous questions, you expounded
on the many risks associated with abortions, particularly with
at-home chemical abortions. With the recent push to eliminate
risk evaluation and mitigation strategy protocols, do you
believe women in rural areas are at a higher risk for serious
complications?
Dr. Skop. Well, certainly. The complications don't occur
when the woman is given the pill in the clinic. The reason for
the in-person requirements is to make sure that they desire the
abortion, that they have been counseled appropriately, that
they are at low risk to have a complication from the abortion.
So if think they are eight weeks and they are really 12 weeks,
there is a far higher failure rate. That is the reason for the
in-person requirements. But the tail end of the abortion is
that many women bleed for a week or two, pass a lot of clots,
have a lot of pain. Eight percent bleed for more than a month.
The tail end is that the complications occur long after she has
left the abortion facility, which may be five hours from her
home. And when she is in a rural area and does not have access
to emergency care conveniently, those are the women that are
going to suffer.
If that woman really understood, I think most of them would
opt for a surgical abortion in the clinic so that it is done,
and they don't have to worry that they are going to be one of
the 5 to 8 percent that are going to require a surgery often in
emergent conditions, overrunning the ER in the time that we are
concerned about the COVID pandemic. Using the pandemic as an
excuse to tell women to go self-manage their abortions remote
from the clinic in rural areas, it just shows me that the
women----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlewoman's time has expired. You
may tie it up. Thank you.
Dr. Skop. Anyway, I just don't think it is good care for
women. It is not showing that we value those women to put them
in that dangerous situation.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Clyde. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady from Michigan, Ms.
Tlaib, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Maloney, for your
courageous stance and also using the House Oversight Committee
to take a deeper dive into the impact of what happened in
Texas, there, as well as across the country.
You know, I grew up in the most beautiful, blackest city in
the country where 85 percent of the city of Detroit is black,
and it is beautiful, and black mothers are the ones who told my
mother to raise her voice when she had that heavy immigrant
accent at parent meetings. And, you know, I am sitting here
listening to people pretending, disingenuously and dishonestly,
that they actually care about the lives of my black neighbors.
I always get emotional about this because I cannot believe that
my colleagues, who didn't vote for the George Floyd Justice for
Policing Act, are talking about the fact that Planned
Parenthood, which I believe is literally one of the only
healthcare places and institutions in cities like mine, the
fact that we have some of the worst infant mortality rates in
the country among black children. We can't even get them to one
year old.
It is like, why aren't we spending the same energy, Doctor,
in saving those lives, getting them to one year? How come when
I was in the Michigan legislature they spent so much time on
this, that they never wanted to talk about that single mother
that we needed to make sure that she had the wraparound
services, that she could actually provide for her family
because she made a choice? But we abandon those mothers, every
corner. We vilify and dehumanize. I have watched them force
mothers to do drug testing before they could even get any
assistance. When? When are we going to actually call this out
for what it is? No, this is about controlling women in our
country, period. Stop pretending that it is anything but.
You know, what is so distressful about all of this is the
fact that it is not just Texas, Chairwoman. You know this. This
is literally opening the floodgates to the possibility that we
are actually going to see our country punish and criminalize
abortion, criminalize women making a very difficult decision. I
want to know, you know, Dr. Skop, like, honestly, what are you
doing about infant mortality rate among black children? Have
you testified in a committee about it?
Dr. Skop. Thank you for your question. I am very interested
in the topic. I have applied to be a member of the Texas
Maternal Morbidity and Mortality Committee three times. I have
not been accepted. I suspect it may be because of my stance on
life.
Ms. Tlaib. Mm-hmm.
Dr. Skop. But I am terribly concerned by the lack of
support that so many of those women have.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. Well, the same people that voted for the
bill that you are championing today are people that would
actually leave them completely homeless and with no safeguards
at all. I want you to believe me when say that to you because
black lives matter should be very much at the forefront in
every policy that we ever do in this country. It can't just be
you carrying a sign or being on a commission. It is actually
standing up and saying what we see, because I want to tell you
something. You know, over 40 percent of the deaths of COVID in
my state are my black neighbors, even though they make up less
than 14 percent of the total population of Michigan, because of
environmental racism, because they don't have access to
healthcare. And you are all punishing Planned Parenthood, which
is literally sometimes the only option that they have because
people are investing and saying this is how we can get access
to healthcare. And I am really just incredibly frustrated of
the gaslighting, the misleading, and trying to say you are
speaking on behalf of my black neighbors. You are not. You are
not.
And so I am going to leave with Ms. Ross. I saw your face
and the pain in your face, and I just have to tell you, you
know, as you were listening to them, I could see you had a lot
to say. And I am going to leave you with the last minute to
tell me how you felt when you heard them talk about, oh, this
is killing black folks. Tell them what is really killing black
folks in this country. Go ahead and tell them the truth.
Ms. Ross. Well, I am tired of white saviors saying that
black women aren't smart enough to make our own decisions about
our lives. That is what I am tired of. That is the ultimate in
racism to accuse us of being less smart, less human, and less
caring about our children than you do when your actions speak
louder than your mealy words because you vote against children
having lunches, getting good schools, getting rid of guns so
that they can survive. You vote against everything about our
children once they are here, and yet you want to say that you
are a better savior of black children than we are? Get over
yourself. This white saviorism does not convince us that you
have our interest at heart.
Ms. Tlaib. I hope you heard her because, you know, a mentor
of mine told me when I got here, some people are never going to
hear or see you the same way I do, Rashida. But I saw you, Ms.
Ross, and you felt what she is saying because it is the truth.
You want to save lives? Start investing in tearing down
structural racism in our country.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, point of order. Point of order.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Comer. Point of order.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Texas, the gentleman
from Kansas, Mr. LaTurner----
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, point of order.
Chairwoman Maloney.--is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Comer. Point of order. Point of order from the ranking
member. Point of order.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair----
Chairwoman Maloney. What is your point of order?
Mr. Comer. I have never seen a hearing where a witness has
been badgered and treated the way that our witness has been
treated today, and I would like to encourage your members to
treat this witness with respect. I can't believe I am having to
say this in Congress. We are very frustrated at 99 percent of
your witnesses over this Congress, but we treat them with
respect. So all I ask is that the Democrats treat our witness
with respect. She is answering the questions. She is doing a
tremendous job handling herself well, and I don't think she
deserves to be treated the way that she has been treated by
your side. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, I know that members have very
strong feelings about this issue, but I would encourage members
to treat everyone in this hearing, members and witnesses, with
respect. And with that, can we continue with our hearing?
I now call upon Mr. LaTurner from Kansas. You are now
recognized, Mr. LaTurner.
Mr. LaTurner. Madam Chairwoman. This committee has many
opportunities for much-needed and long-overdue oversight,
including the growing security crisis on our southern border,
the deadly disaster that was our humiliating troop withdrawal
from Afghanistan, the true origin of COVID, or the growing
economic threat of runaway inflation for every American family.
However, we are taking time today to instead focus on the
legislation the House passed last Friday, the abortion on
demand until birth act.
This past January marked the 40th anniversary of the
Supreme Court's infamous Roe ruling, which struck down any laws
protecting unborn children from abortion in every State of the
Union. Since that horrible decision, an estimated 60 million
unborn American lives have been cut short by the abortion
industry. It is estimated that as many as 2,000 unborn American
lives are tragically ended every day. Fortunately,
notwithstanding efforts like H.R. 3755, that number is on the
decline in America, thanks in no small part to science-
science, which proves at six weeks, an unborn child has a
heartbeat of about 98 beats per minute; science, which proves
at 10 weeks an unborn child has arms, legs, fingers, and toes,
and is capable of feeling pain; science, which proves at 15
weeks, an unborn child has a fully developed heart, pumping 26
quarts of blood per day.
As more and more Americans have seen this evidence, states
have enacted over 1,250 laws since Roe, and about 500 in the
past decade alone, to protect the life of the unborn child and
the pregnant mother. Today, two-thirds of Americans believe
states should make laws regarding the abortion industry and
that abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. Four
out of five Americans believe abortion should be illegal in the
third trimester. Congress must stand with these Americans to
reject the abortion politics of the left and continue to find a
way to work together to protect the unborn.
Dr. Skop, I appreciate you being here, and I would echo the
comments of the ranking member that you have been treated
terribly today. The work that you have done is incredibly
impressive, compassionate, and I want to ask you a couple of
questions. But first, earlier you tried to speak on Margaret
Sanger, and Planned Parenthood, and some things like this, and
I just wanted, if you would like it, to give you an opportunity
to talk about that if you want.
Dr. Skop. Sure. Thank you, Congressman. It is a little more
complicated than what Congresswoman Foxx stated. Margaret
Sanger, there is quite a lot of documentation that she was a
eugenicist. Eugenics was very popular in our country at that
time, and she has made many statements talking about the types
of people that she did not want to be born. Recently, the
Manhattan Planned Parenthood took her name off of their
building as they acknowledged that she had made statements that
were not in line with what we believe today.
Alan Guttmacher was the second head of Planned Parenthood
about the time that abortion became legal. That is when it made
its foray into abortion provision, and I think everyone is
aware they provide more than half of the abortions in our
country today. So she was not in favor of abortion. Abortion
was illegal and dangerous at the time that she did her work,
but she was in favor of keeping certain ethnic groups and
financial groups from having children.
Mr. LaTurner. I think one of the things, you know, when we
look at these laws, I was in the Kansas state legislature and
worked on banning sex selection abortions, for example. And
these laws that we see across the country I am so supportive
of, and we have to continue to fight on this front. I also
think the pro-life movement needs to do a better job of showing
compassion for the mothers that find themselves in this
terrible circumstance. I think you are one of the people doing
that great work. Could you talk specifically about the work
your pregnancy centers do to support pregnant women and their
loved ones?
Dr. Skop. Thank you so much for that question. Yes, my
passion for this is, as I said earlier, that women never have
to address this horrible decision, no matter how they choose.
You could see from our witnesses earlier today, even though
they feel like the decision they made allowed them to succeed
in life, it is still painful. It is still painful. And I have
to say, Dr. Ross, your story of bearing the child of a rape,
that hurts my heart that you went through that. We do need to
acknowledge that children do not have to be a barrier to
success in life as women. Gloria Steinem, I appreciate the
groundwork that, as a feminist, that she laid so that we women
are extraordinarily successful. I have three children. I love
them all dearly. I worked until the day I gave birth for all
three of those children. It did not stop me from succeeding in
my chosen profession.
We must, I think, as a country get past the partisanship
that says we either have to have it available for everybody in
every circumstance or we have to totally limit it entirely. We
are all concerned about human trafficking. Letting medical
abortion pills be readily available over the internet by mail
order, how does that help trafficked women? Interactions with
the medical system are one of the ways that they can be
identified and helped, but these pregnant women, many
trafficked women, probably most trafficked women have
abortions, have unintended pregnancies and abortions. And if we
are just allowing their traffickers to have these pills to end
their pregnancies so that they never see the healthcare system,
that is wrong.
As I said, in the work that do, I want to provide women----
Chairwoman Maloney. Can you just sum up?
Dr. Skop. OK. Sorry.
Chairwoman Maloney. The time has expired. Mm-hmm.
Dr. Skop. Effective contraception so that they don't get
pregnant, healthy relationships so that if they do get
pregnant, it is a couple together who can raise a child, sex
education so that children understand the importance of
abstinence and which contraception works well and which does
not. Those are----
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Illinois is
recognized. Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to thank
you for calling this very important hearing. I also want to
thank all of the witnesses for their compelling testimoneys,
and especially I want to thank my sister colleagues for their
revelations and sharing their experiences. Ms. Aziz, I want to
start by thanking you for sharing your story with the committee
and with the world. I know that I speak for many of my
colleagues and the public in saying that we are better for
having your voice here today. With your permission, I would
like to ask you about some of the experiences you shared in
your testimony, including some you identified as being
traumatic. Is that OK with you?
Ms. Aziz. Absolutely.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. In your powerful written testimony,
you noted that the unlicensed clinicians who were pressuring
you to continue carrying your unwanted pregnancy, misinformed
you about your ability to pursue a medication abortion. Is that
true?
Ms. Aziz. Yes.
Mr. Davis. Let me ask you. How did you feel when you were
told that you could not receive a medication abortion
treatment?
Ms. Aziz. Thank you for your question. I want to start by
saying I do not regret either of my abortions. I do regret my
experience at the crisis pregnancy center. The most traumatic
part of my experience was one of those centers and how I was
treated there, and I hope that they all shut down because they
exist to manipulate and prey on vulnerable pregnant people. And
I just wanted to acknowledge a lot of people are being left out
of this conversation today because, as we know, people get
pregnant and not just women. But I hear people over and over
and over again say women get pregnant, but that is excluding
people that should be a part of this conversation.
As for the crisis pregnancy center, I let them know that I
am a survivor of sexual assault, and I developed a medical
condition as a result of it called vaginismus, which makes any
sort of penetration very difficult, so naturally, I had anxiety
about a transvaginal ultrasound. There were these two ladies
trying to imitate doctors wearing lab coats, clearly not
medical professionals, and I told them and the sonographer, you
know, you are not a licensed sonographer, but someone wearing
scrubs. I told them I was scared, and the response was,
``Honey, you are pregnant now. You should learn to deal with
pain.''
As someone who has worked in the role of an advocate for
sexual assault survivors and as a survivor, that is disgusting,
and I don't know why crisis pregnancy centers are allowed to
exist and prey on people. I just think they should all shut
down and none of them should exist because they do not help
pregnant people. They prey on pregnant people.
Mr. Davis. You mentioned in your written testimony that you
actually had a relative who assisted you when you were in need.
And that made me remember the times when I have driven young
would-be mothers to the emergency room of hospitals after they
had attempted an abortion with a coat hanger. Had not your
family been able to help you financially, what do you think
your experiences would have been like?
Ms. Aziz. I just want to say S.B. 8 does worry me about
people using unsafe alternatives, but I do want to assure
everybody, as someone who has had two medication abortions,
that it is very, very safe, and it is nothing like people here
have described. You know, I was very angry that I had to travel
all the way to Colorado Springs and spend $2,000 that I didn't
even have, that a relative paid for me to have access to my
abortion. But all I really did was go to another state,
navigate all of these numerous barriers for a provider to give
me a pill that I could have taken at home in Texas, and that is
what I should have been able to do.
Medication abortions are safe. They are very safe, and they
are a great way to have an abortion if that is what somebody
chooses. It is the pregnant person's choice. If I was to get
pregnant again and I did not want to carry the pregnancy to
term, my choice would be a third medication abortion.
Mr. Davis. Let me thank you for sharing your experiences
with us. Madam Chairman, let me thank you again. This has
indeed been a very informative hearing, and I couldn't thank
you more for holding it. And I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Sure. I guess this can be either of you,
though, I guess, primarily Dr. Skop. If this bill would ever
become law, I kind of think how is this going to affect
America. And, of course, I was in the state legislature for a
long period of time, and we had a variety of bills. While we
would have liked to ban abortion, we had a variety of bills to
hopefully change the way people looked at it. And one of those
bills was the 24-hour period bill that I had in Wisconsin that,
I think, was kind of the model for the country.
And in researching it, you know, we talked about all the
women who were being pushed into having an abortion. And also,
after the bill passed, it came out in court that, I cannot
remember whether it was either one-seventh or one-tenth who
showed up the first day didn't show up the second day, which
would indicate that without the bill, the abortion providers,
like too many people in the medical profession, but these guys
in particular, they just wanted to get the abortion done and
get their cash and not have to worry that someone might not
come back for the second appointment. Could you comment on why
anybody would want to put somebody through an abortion 45
minutes, an hour after they walked in the door without letting
them go home and collect their thoughts, and see what they
really felt?
Dr. Skop. I don't know the mindset of what would encourage
that, but I think if all of us believe in choice, this is a
type of a decision that, admittedly, some women can make this
decision and move on, but I have seen many women who have made
the decision and have regretted it intensely. So this is the
type of decision that should allow time for reflection. So I
would think that anybody who cares about choice would be
interested in making sure that a woman has all the information
at her disposal. She knows how far along she is. She knows what
the complications that might result from the procedure could
be. She understands the development of her child, and then she
has time to reflect. As you said, many women do not come back
after the waiting period, and I think that those are the women
who have reflected and said, you know what? This is not the
choice I want to make. Carrying my baby is the choice I want to
make.
So if we are not motivated by a thought that every abortion
is a good abortion, which I think all of us intuitively realize
that is not the case. I mean, you know, perhaps population
control motivations, perhaps eugenic motivations may consider
that every abortion is a good abortion. But those of us who are
thinking individuals who understand the complexity of people's
lives must recognize that there are some people who may move on
from an abortion without much effect, and there are others who
are going to be dramatically changed. And we need to make sure
that both of those people have the information that they need
in order to make the right choice.
Mr. Grothman. Also it is an opportunity for some of these
children's lives to be saved. And if you talk to anybody who
has been adopted or people who have adopted children, you
realize that, you know, when these women don't come back after
24 hours, a really fortunate thing has happened. I will make
one final comment before I let you go. I have in my political
life run into several pro-Planned Parenthood people, and they
do focus, I am aware, you know, that they really do like to
highlight the black population.
But we will give you one more question. At present, case
law holds that states may prohibit abortion after viability as
long as there are exceptions for life and health, especially
with major advances in medicine and technology. Do you believe
it is much clearer that we have a human life today than, say,
30 years ago?
Dr. Skop. Absolutely. The ultrasound technology, fetoscopy,
intrauterine surgery on these 18-week babies. But you know
what? Even shortly after the time of Roe, Dr. Bernard Nathanson
was one of the founding members of NARAL, and he was
instrumental in the Roe decision. He was an abortionist, and as
he saw more ultrasound technology and recognized the humanity
of the fetus, he wrote a letter in the New England Journal of
Medicine where he said I am increasingly convinced that I have
presided over 60,000 deaths. He became pro-life because of the
ultrasound technology.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair,
our twins, who were conceived through in vitro fertilization 22
years ago, after they were born, we were told that the only way
we could conceive a child was through IVF. Four years later, I
missed a period, but learned I was pregnant with our very much
wanted daughter at eight weeks, and that is because millions of
women have irregular menstrual cycles, and often times, by the
time you realize you have missed your period, you are past the
six-week limitation in the Texas law. This is common. So, Dr.
Skop, your testimony that suggests that most women have plenty
of time within that six-week limitation is divorced from
reality, from biology, and science, and you know it.
Now, moving on to the extremism in the Texas law. We heard
the pain and confusion and challenges that Ms. Ross and her son
have gone through as a result of being forced to share custody
with her attacker. I just can't even imagine. But members
should be aware that 34 states require a conviction of rape to
terminate the parental rights of the attacker. Forcing women to
give birth from a pregnancy conceived from rape is forcing
women to repeatedly be re-victimized by their rapist, and that
is outrageous and unacceptable.
Now, soon after the Supreme Court allowed Texas' six-week
abortion ban to take effect, anti-choice lawmakers in several
states announced similar legislative abortion bans, including
my own state of Florida. These grotesque Texas and Florida
bills, in particular, pose some of the greatest threats to
abortion access in U.S. history. One of the most alarming
aspects of these draconian and blatantly unconstitutional bills
is that they allow private citizens from anywhere to become
bounty hunters to enforce the six-week abortion ban. This is
the snitch society and Big Brother vigilantism of Maduro's
Venezuela and Castro's Cuba that my constituents have fled.
Anyone, from local anti-abortion protesters to out-of-state
lobbying groups, can sue any individual helping patients access
abortion, and that could include a clinic receptionist or even
someone who drives a patient to an appointment, including
family members, friends, or even Uber or Lyft drivers.
Ms. Murray, as a legal expert, can you tell us what this
means for people accessing abortion in Texas, and what would it
mean for individuals in Florida if that copycat bill was signed
into law? And in your answer, can you provide a little more
detail about the nefarious nature of this bounty system in
enforcement strategy? Do you believe the goal was really to
have private citizens actually file lawsuits or just create an
intimidation culture of fear that will prevent women from
receiving abortion care?
Ms. Murray. Thank you for the question. I am delighted to
answer it and to set the record straight on S.B. 8, Texas'
flagrantly unconstitutional six-week ban on abortion. The law
was purposely crafted to avoid judicial review. Typically, when
abortion bans are put into law, they are immediately enjoined
because they violate the Constitution, and Federal courts will
stop them from going into effect while their constitutionality
is being litigated. In order to avoid that, Jonathan Mitchell,
who is the architect of S.B. 8 and also the author of the bill
previously referenced that cites Lawrence v. Texas and
Obergefell v. Hodges as the next precedents to be overruled
after Roe, he crafted this law for the purpose of taking the
state out of the enforcement mechanism and delegating
enforcement to private individuals.
The purpose of this is twofold: one, to dismantle any
system of support that a pregnant person might rely upon in
seeking abortion care, and two, to ensure that a Federal Court
cannot come and stop this law from going into effect. That
produces the procedural irregularities that the Supreme Court
cited in allowing this ban to go into effect, and it is the
reason why today there are millions of people of reproductive
age in Texas who are without the same constitutional rights
that the rest of us enjoy.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Professor Ross, I want to
turn to you. I am concerned that anti-abortion extremists will
use social media companies, like Twitter and Facebook, to
coordinate the harassment and bounty hunting of women seeking
abortion. Due to systemic racial and economic barriers, we know
that black women will likely suffer the brunt of this harm. And
while some companies have stepped in to prevent this kind of
egregious behavior, others have failed to act, which is a clear
violation of their community guidelines. Do technology
companies also have an obligation to stop abortion bounty
hunting on their platform to ensure community safety?
Ms. Ross. Well, I think technology companies need to be
regulated simply because they have been acting like a utility
and they have our privacy information. They don't seem to have
a moral center about how their platforms get used to challenge
democracy, and they don't seem to care because they monetize
hatred and outrage and laugh all the way to the bank, while
those of us who are vulnerable can be targeted. So yes, I think
that is a real discussion we need to have, and I do want to
raise one point, and that is talk about how many people think
that black women are threatened by Planned Parenthood.
I have never worked for Planned Parenthood. I am not an
employee, but I am going to speak up on behalf of black women
who are constantly told that we are not smart enough to
determine for our lives the decisions we need to make. And I
really think these white saviors need to stop acting like
racists, because if you don't want to be called racists, stop
mouthing those racist talking points against black women
because we see you for what you are doing, not for the mealy
words you are saying. You don't care about our lives, you don't
care about our children, and we don't care to have you
denigrating Planned Parenthood which does work to save our
lives because you think we don't see through your hypocrisy.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Norman, is now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Madam Chairman. As I think
Congressman Comer had mentioned at the offset, this is a sad
day. With the atrocities that are happening all over this
country from Afghanistan where people are getting slaughtered,
to the border where you talk about women's rights, women's
freedoms. Women are getting raped. Children are getting raped.
Drugs are coming across the border. And we are talking here
today, spending time, the taxpayers' dollars on talking about a
state issue right now that, really, with the ongoing tragedies
happening all over the world that are self-inflicted by
Pennsylvania Avenue, it is amazing that we are doing this.
But anyway, you know, as I have listened, I have heard the
words to describe the killing of a child and let me just read
them: ``a woman's legal right to choose,'' ``a woman's right,
``women's choice, ``fertilized egg.'' Folks, this is the taking
of a life, and I know our family has experienced it with a
daughter having a child after 25 weeks. I think Representative
Jayapal had mentioned her child was as big as her hand. Our
grandchild was as big as a hand. They went through the
decisions that it could affect the life of the mother, could
affect the long-term health of the child. She chose to have the
child and the child is up and running. We just celebrated his
second birthday.
So, you know, I guess as we talk about this, I would just
ask, Dr. Skop, the people that you have, I guess, counseled
after they have had an abortion, in my case, the people that I
have talked to, anybody that has had an abortion that I have
talked with has had a tear behind their description of what
they went through. What is your experience?
Dr. Skop. Well, I would say it is mixed. Some women will
not talk to me about it, and, you know, we hear that 1 out of 4
American women have had abortions. But when I do new patient
evaluations, it is not nearly 1 out of 4 that will report that
on their history. So, you know, there was some discussion
earlier today about shame and stigma, and it is true that women
experience shame from their abortions, but it is not because of
Republican lawmakers. It is because they know that they have
ended the life of their child.
When counseling a woman, if they do give me the history of
an abortion, I do try to look into that a little bit. How do
you feel? Many times just asking very gentle questions 20 years
later, tears will come to their eyes. So they still feel regret
and sadness in many cases. Perhaps if they have had multiple
surgical abortions, I will do proactive monitoring, measuring
cervical length, you know, make sure that if they are beginning
to have an incompetent cervix, that we can treat that and we
can be proactive.
It wasn't really brought up in this hearing, but I do want
to make the point, many times we hear about abortion for the
life of the mother, and as an OB/GYN caring for many women, I
have never had to refer a patient for an abortion to save her
life. In the rare event that a fetus does pose a risk to his
mother's life, I can deliver that baby by C-section or induced
labor. Many times he can be saved. If he can't, his mother can
hold him and love him----
Mr. Grothman. Right.
Dr. Skop [continuing]. Until he passes away. We can deal
with these hard cases in a very humane way.
Mr. Grothman. I agree. Ms. Aziz, you are familiar with if
somebody is accused of a double homicide, killing a mother
while she is pregnant. Are you in favor of redoing those laws?
I mean, if you are in favor of abortion, if the killing of a
child and a mother is double homicide, would you change the
laws in the state?
Ms. Aziz. I am in favor of everyone having equitable and
fair access to healthcare, which I believe abortion is.
Mr. Grothman. No, I am talking about double homicides.
Should that be changed?
Ms. Aziz. Again, I believe that abortion is healthcare, and
I just don't see it the way that you do and others.
Mr. Grothman. What is your definition of homicide?
Ms. Aziz. I said I don't see abortion as homicide. I see
abortion as healthcare, so, and for me, there can be no limits
on healthcare. There can't be circumstances, restrictions.
Healthcare should always be free, equitable, and everybody
should have access regardless.
Mr. Grothman. Yes, but you are not answering my question.
If you could take the life of a child, if you shoot a mother
and a child in the womb, why is that a crime, and do you think
that crime ought to be changed so that it is not double
homicide.
Ms. Aziz. I think what is really important is to focus on--
--
Mr. Grothman. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it. Thank you.
You are not answering my question.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. The gentleman from Vermont, Mr.
Welch, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank all
of the witnesses. I also especially want to thank my
congressional colleagues who spoke this morning and told of
their deeply personal situations. I applaud them for coming
forward. I am appalled by the Texas decision as a fundamental
infringement on the rights of women. I am appalled by the
aspect of that law that turns citizens into vigilante bounty
hunters. It is chaos for our country. It totally erodes
personal respect and the rule of law.
In Vermont, I am very proud of our legislature and our
Governor who have passed into law a bill, H. 57, which
recognizes choice and reproductive care as a fundamental right,
and it prohibits the state and local government from
restricting abortion. It upholds the rights of women. It is now
going to be considered by the people of Vermont as a
constitutional amendment, and I am totally in support of, of
course, of Representative Chu's law that I am a co-sponsor of.
One of the challenges we have in Vermont, it is a very
rural state, and there are many, many parts of Texas that are
extraordinarily rural. But it is very difficult with abortion
restrictions for women in rural areas to get access to anything
that is it all convenient. And my question, I will start with
Dr. Moayedi--people living in rural communities where providers
can be few and far between, women already face challenges to
get abortion care. In your experience, how do abortion bans and
the severe restrictions, particularly what we are seeing in
Texas, affect patients seeking abortion care in rural
communities?
Dr. Moayedi. Abortion restrictions are devastating to the
rural communities that I serve. In Dallas, on any day,
providing abortion care, of course, prior to this law being
enacted, I might see several patients that have driven 3, 4,
500 miles to get to Dallas for care. That is completely
unethical and unconscionable that someone has to drive that far
to get pregnancy care.
Mr. Welch. Ms. Aziz, I want to thank you for your work. How
does the Texas Equal Access Fund support rural patients in need
of abortion care? There are real practical challenges that have
to be met, and I would like you to explain how you manage to
help folks in your area.
Ms. Aziz. Thank you for your question. As Dr. Moayedi said,
rural folks face additional challenges when it comes to
accessing abortion. You know, there aren't that many abortion
clinics left in the state of Texas, and people have to travel
really, really far. Before S.B. 8, people had to travel really,
really far, so now, as I said, it is practically a logistical
nightmare. Even if someone were to know that they were pregnant
by six weeks, by the time they might be able to come up with
the money or by the time they would be able to find a clinic
and make an appointment, they could be well over that limit. So
what we really need to focus on is how people are not able to
access care, people in rural communities especially.
Mr. Welch. Right.
Ms. Aziz. But people are not able to access care that they
deserve because of S.B. 8.
Mr. Welch. You know, and sometimes it gets abstract here
because the very real financial pressures on a young person
that is in need of an abortion, even with a job, the gas money,
the childcare money, and taking time off from work, which they
may or not be able to do. Can you just comment a little bit on
those really practical, real-world challenges that a young
woman would face?
Ms. Aziz. Absolutely, and I can actually talk about my own
personal experience. When I had my first abortion, I was that
young woman, you know, who was in college, who was new to a
country, a new immigrant, new to the legal system. I didn't
know much about the U.S., and where I come from, abortion is
not treated the way it is here in the U.S., so the culture
shock added to all of that. I had to travel, as I said, to
Colorado Springs because of the misinformation provided to me
by the crisis pregnancy center. And I wish I didn't have to
because, clearly, I didn't have the money, and if I didn't have
a relative who stepped in, then I wouldn't be sitting before
you today at all. I wouldn't have my daughter that I love with
my whole heart today. I wouldn't be married to my husband, you
know.
And for a flight alone, you know, a last-minute flight when
you are trying to scramble and you are trying to make sure that
you can get your procedure when you need it, a last-minute
flight was nearly $400. A lot of people may disagree, but as
someone who has had that experience, a support person in a new
state is also very important. So for that support person to
also buy a flight, you are looking at $800 alone in flights. My
procedure was about $680, but my blood type is also negative,
so I needed a RhoGAM shot to protect a future pregnancy. That
was over $120. I was extremely sick and forced to travel, take
a flight, go to another state.
I needed pain medication, but I also needed nausea
medication because I would throw up about 13, 14 times a day. I
was extremely dehydrated. I couldn't keep my head straight, but
I was being forced to travel from Texas all the way to Colorado
Springs for healthcare. It was ridiculous. Not to mention, you
know, I love my family and I love my friends who came through
for me, but there are other costs such as food. And I worked a
$10-an-hour job at the time, so I missed work, but I was only
able to make it work because of my family member who paid for
everything. Otherwise, you are also talking about the loss of
wages for those two weeks that I missed work. I quoted it
around nearly $2,000 for me.
Mr. Welch. Well, thank you.
Ms. Aziz. So if you just imagine, that is not a cost that
is on my----
Mr. Welch. My time is up, but that is very graphic, very
real.
Chairwoman Maloney. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is recognized for
five minutes. Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, Madam Chairwoman, I
am deeply opposed to the premise of this hearing, and I am
sincerely disappointed that you have chosen to use the
committee's time and resources on this topic of expanding
abortion access rather than conducting legitimate oversight of
President Biden's Administration and its disastrous policies.
Disastrous policies. We are discussing the Democrats' assertion
that we must expand access to a procedure that has killed an
estimated 62 million babies since Roe v. Wade was decided. Just
last week, the House passed legislation that, if enacted, would
codify Roe v. Wade and would make every state in the country a
late-term abortion state. And last week, the Democrats voted
not to preserve the life of a baby born alive after an
abortion. So I am really disturbed by the premise of this
hearing.
Dr. Skop, I am going to go read some statements with regard
to certain findings in an article that I will submit to the
record later, Madam Chair. This is from a journal called
Journal of Medical Ethics by Dr. Stuart Derbyshire and John
Bachman, who wrote, ``Current neuroscientific evidence supports
the possibility of fetal pain before the consensus cutoff of 24
weeks.'' In fact, they go on to conclude that a baby in utero
may feel pain as early as 12 weeks. Your comments, please.
Dr. Skop. You know, that article is very interesting
because Dr. Derbyshire is well known as an expert in the field.
And, in fact, ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, in their statement saying that fetal pain does
not occur until the third trimester, quoted Dr. Derbyshire. The
other paper that they quoted was Susan Lee, and that was a very
biased paper written by an abortion provider. Nonetheless, Dr.
Derbyshire is a pro-choice man, but he also is willing to
follow the science where it goes, and he has become convinced
with his research that there is compelling evidence that pain
exists as early as 12 weeks. His previous statements, he went
and said, you know what, I was wrong. So I wish we could all do
that, that we could all re-examine our biases and look at the
current evidence and decide that perhaps in some ways we have
been wrong.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. And from another piece, I am going to
quote from it: ``Today, during a fetal surgery, a specialist in
fetal anesthesia is invariably present to administer a general
anesthetic to the baby as well as a paralytic agent and an
opioid.'' Is that accurate?
Dr. Skop. That is accurate. That is the standard of care
for fetal surgery.
Mr. Biggs. And why would you provide fetal anesthesia and a
paralytic agent, and maybe even an opioid, to a fetus receiving
surgery?
Dr. Skop. Because in that case, the fetus is the patient.
He is desired. The cognitive dissonance that applies to
abortion does not apply to him, and so he is treated with care
and respect.
Mr. Biggs. I was struck by your earlier testimony that your
training was that when you are treating someone who is
pregnant, you are treating two patients. Expand on that,
please.
Dr. Skop. Well, I entered the field of OB/GYN because the
moment that a new baby is born is the most fabulous thing. If
you haven't seen it, you just have to be there to just
recognize the miracle of life. I love women as well as the
fetuses, so I don't want you to think, and I think the
allegation has been made that somehow I have taken the fetuses'
side. I just think that women suffer from having this choice so
readily available, socially, physically, mentally in many
cases.
You know, I wanted to say something related to the
accessibility which kind of relates to what you just said. You
know, I am a provider in San Antonio, and we have many rural
women who live around us. We are about two, two-and-a-half
hours from the border, so I have patients who come to see me
early in pregnancy once a month, later every two weeks, the
final month of pregnancy weekly, from those border cities
driving two-and-a-half hours each way so that I can care for
their babies. So people are concerned that people might have to
make two trips to abort their baby, but people who desire a
baby many times make that trip multiple times, which speaks to
maybe we should be expanding access to hospitals and prenatal
care in rural areas instead of just prioritizing abortion.
Mr. Biggs. Madam Chair, my time has expired. I would like
to, without objection, submit a couple of articles to the
record, and I will submit them.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady from California, Ms.
Jackie Speier, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for
your participation here. Dr. Moayedi, can you tell me what the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says about
abortion?
Dr. Moayedi. Yes. I mean, I can't tell you exactly what the
overall statement is, but that all physicians, all OB/GYNs
should offer non-biased, evidence-based care, and that abortion
is part of the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare.
Ms. Speier. And in the testimony that has been offered
today, have you heard non-biased statements being made about
the procedure by your colleague?
Dr. Moayedi. No, I have not.
Ms. Speier. Can you elucidate on that, please?
Dr. Moayedi. Sure. I have heard several racist statements
and several statements made by white people about what black
people should or shouldn't do with their pregnancies. That is
incredibly disturbing to hear white people discussing what
racism is or is not. I have also heard several pieces of
misinformation around what medication abortion does or does
not. These are not chemicals. I think I heard very strange
terminology used. These are two medications. The first
medication is called mifepristone. This medication blocks the
hormone progesterone. It is not some magic toxin. It is a
simple hormone blocker, and it prevents the pregnancy from
continuing to grow. This medication can also be used to induce
birth later in pregnancy, so it is safe to take throughout
pregnancy. The second medications are called misoprostol. These
medications both of us used to induce labor. We use it to
prepare a cervix prior to gynecologic surgery, and it is also
used in abortion care. So these two medications are incredibly
safe.
Ms. Speier. So according to a 2018 report by the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, abortion is
safer than childbirth, colonoscopies, dental procedures,
plastic surgery, and tonsillectomies. And yet, facilities that
provide abortion care are more likely to be subjected to
medically unnecessary, politically motivated regulations that
only make it more difficult to provide abortion services. Have
you encountered such targeted regulations of abortion providers
where you practice, and if so, how has it affected you?
Dr. Moayedi. I experience trap laws, targeted regulations
every single day that I provide abortion care, from where I
have to go to provide abortion care instead of being able to
provide it in my private practice--I have to go provide at a
specially licensed clinic in our state--from the ways that I
have to counsel patients. The state requires that I lie to
patients about risks associated with the medications or with
the abortion. Really top to bottom, everything about the care
that we provide is regulated by the state.
We also have fake clinics all across our state that lie to
people, that perform ultrasounds without medical supervision. I
have taken care of people that have been told that their
pregnancy is six weeks when they are actually 18 weeks. They
have been told their pregnancy is 18 weeks when they are
actually six weeks. And the intention is to lie to them,
deceive them, and coerce them out of their abortion decisions.
Ms. Speier. Is it uncommon in your practice that a woman
comes to you not even knowing she is pregnant and she is 16
weeks?
Dr. Moayedi. There are people that present not knowing how
many weeks they are. That is not very common. The overwhelming
scientific evidence shows that people are pretty good at
knowing how pregnant they are, although it might take them a
little while to find out. Of course, you have to miss your
period first----
Ms. Speier. Or maybe more than once, right?
Dr. Moayedi. Right. Exactly.
Ms. Speier. I mean, because I think that what we forget,
and certainly our male colleagues wouldn't have any experience
with it, but often times you will miss your period because of
some stress-related occasion, and so you just kind of file it
away.
Dr. Moayedi. Right.
Ms. Speier. And then you are another month. And sometimes
it is not until the third month without your period that you
think, well, maybe I am pregnant.
Dr. Moayedi. Yes.
Ms. Speier. Does that happen? Has that happened----
Dr. Moayedi. It does, yes. And, you know, the other thing I
want to make clear is that abortion is not just for people that
forgot to take contraception or their contraception failed. So
it is false to say that if we just got everyone an IUD, we
wouldn't have abortion anymore. People also choose abortion
with very highly desired pregnancies because many things in
their lives change, and so it is false to say that this is just
a contraception issue.
Ms. Speier. I thank you. One last question. How much does
it cost? Insurance can't cover abortion in Texas. Is that
correct?
Dr. Moayedi. That is true.
Ms. Speier. How much does it cost to get an abortion in
Texas?
Dr. Moayedi. So abortion care is actually incredibly cheap.
Ms. Speier. Maybe you could provide the answer for the
record.
Dr. Moayedi. Yes. OK.
Ms. Speier. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Ms. Herrell is now recognized, from New
Mexico, for five minutes.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Madam Chair and witnesses. I know
it has been a very long day, and while I understand this is
such an important topic for us, I do truly wish we were having
hearings on the threats to our food supply, the crisis at our
border, the Afghan evacuee vetting crisis, and even the
Administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan, but we are not.
This is what we are doing today, and my questions are for Dr.
Moayedi. And I know we don't have a lot of time, so I will go
through these questions.
But I come from a state, the state of New Mexico, where
obviously late-term abortion is still alive and well. I don't
support that, but what I do want to ask you is some specific
questions about the procedure as a whole. And is it true that
abortion procedures change based on the gestational age and
size of the unborn child?
Dr. Moayedi. So if I could finish answering my question
from before----
Ms. Herrell. No. Thank you. Please answer my question.
Dr. Moayedi. And your question again?
Ms. Herrell. Is it true that abortion procedures change
based on the gestational age and size of the unborn child?
Dr. Moayedi. So abortion procedures are individualized to
the person, where they are at in the pregnancy, their unique
medical circumstances, and the setting in which we are
providing the care.
Ms. Herrell. So what surgical abortion procedures are
typically used in early pregnancy?
Dr. Moayedi. So as far as procedural abortion, typically
early pregnancy, what is offered is either with medications--
the procedure is called a dilation, a dilation and curettage--
or an aspiration abortion.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you. And why is this procedure not used
later in pregnancy?
Dr. Moayedi. This procedure is also used later in
pregnancy. We just also use other instruments to help us remove
the pregnancy.
Ms. Herrell. OK. I thought it was because the tissues grow
firmer, so it is a more difficult abortion process, and I might
be wrong there.
Dr. Moayedi. So that is exactly what I just explained that
I use the same technique, but I add additional instruments.
Ms. Herrell. Great. And what abortion procedures are
typically used after 15 weeks gestation?
Dr. Moayedi. The same abortion procedure I just described.
We use a combination of gently dilating the cervix using
medications and dilators, and then removing the pregnancy using
suction and instruments.
Ms. Herrell. So these are more along the line of the
dismemberment abortion.
Dr. Moayedi. That is not a medical term.
Ms. Herrell. But it is used.
Dr. Moayedi. That is not a medical term.
Ms. Herrell. The procedure.
Dr. Moayedi. The procedure is called a dilation and
evacuation.
Ms. Herrell. So equal to dismemberment.
Dr. Moayedi. That is not a medical term.
Ms. Herrell. Well, I just want to make sure that the public
can understand exactly what we are talking about because we are
talking about dismembering a baby with a heartbeat.
Dr. Moayedi. I am not here to lie to the public.
Ms. Herrell. Well, I am not here either, not to lie to the
public, but I do want to speak truth to the public, and so
let's call it what it is. I am going to say ``dismemberment.''
You don't have to respond to that, but we all know that is
exactly what it is, and people need to understand what we are
talking about when we are dismembering arms and legs of a
beating heart baby from a mother. So thank you for those
answers.
I would now like to move over to the Republican witness. I
am just going to ask your opinion. I believe we have a moral
crisis on our hands in the country. I think if we stop teaching
children in elementary school how to put condoms on bananas,
how to stop thinking that having sex with no consequences,
making personal choices that would not relate to having to make
a tough decision like this is part of our problem. Help me
understand what you think of the education, in terms of sexual
education, and the morality of what we are doing to our youth.
What is your thought on that?
Dr. Skop. I think that there is a concern that, for
whatever reason, we are attempting to normalize sexual behavior
in young children. I mean, history has shown us that people do
have sex. Before Roe, obviously there were many women who
painfully gave their babies up for adoption, which was a very
sad thing, and women who did seek illegal abortions, but we are
we are promoting activity that will be followed through. I
mean, the more you intrigue children by talking about
sexuality, the more of that behavior you will get. I don't
think there is any surprise there. The more sexual intercourse
that occurs, even if there are contraceptives available, the
more unintended pregnancies you will see. So I agree, we are
sexualizing children. I am not sure why that is being promoted,
but the consequence is that we are having more young children
pregnant, and I agree it is a problem.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you, and I wish we would all step up to
the plate and have our moral compasses reexamined and help our
children make sound decisions. And thank you, Madam Chair. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Porter, is now
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Dr. Skop, do
you believe all black lives matter?
Dr. Skop. Of course I do.
Ms. Porter. You have written that widespread abortion in
the black population has become an ``acceptable'' form of
racism in the United States today. You wrote this quote,
``Clearly abortion has disproportionately affected the black
community, leading to a decrease in their population numbers,
as well as many adverse consequences to women and children.
Many of the pathologies''--your word--``affecting the black
community can be at least partially attributed to the breakdown
in families and the absence of paternal involvement facilitated
by abortion. Mental health complications in black women,
leading to deaths of despair, can be caused by abortion.''
Could you explain to me what your expertise and familiarity is
with black families?
Dr. Skop. Well, I have a niece and a nephew that are both
black.
Ms. Porter. Wonderful. Thank you very much, Dr. Skop.
Turning now to Professor Murray. How would you respond to this
argument?
Ms. Murray. Thank you so much for the question. The
purported links between abortion and the eugenics movement is a
subject of my own scholarship. I recently published a paper in
the Harvard Law Review outlining the ways in which this
narrative of abortion as eugenics is being used to advance
race-based grounds for overruling Roe v. Wade. The increased
interest in this narrative can be traced to Justice Clarence
Thomas' 2019 concurrence in Box v. Planned Parenthood of
Indiana and Kentucky. There, Justice Thomas attempted to graft
abortion to the history of the eugenics movement in the United
States. Unfortunately, the history upon which he relied to do
so was woefully incomplete.
Justice Thomas was correct to note that in the 1920's and
1930's, the United States was in the grips of eugenics fervor
and its concomitant interest in racial purity and white
supremacy. However, in advancing those interests in racial
purity, the eugenicists did not rely on abortion. Rather, their
efforts were channeled into bans on interracial marriage,
immigration laws that kept certain ethnic minorities out of
this country, and, most importantly, for our purposes, forcible
and coercive sterilization of those with so-called weak or
deleterious genes. These sterilization laws were later
repurposed and redirected in the 1960's toward poor women who
were receiving public assistance.
So this is all to say that sterilization, rather than
abortion, was the eugenicists' preferred means of reproductive
control. And to the extent that abortion figured into this
eugenic fervor at all, it was in the effort to compel native-
born white women to reproduce in greater numbers. In the period
following the Civil War, there was considerable anxiety about
the changing demographic character of this country. White
middle-class women were using contraception and abortion to
limit their families to manageable sizes while immigrant women
were having babies in record numbers. Fearing the replacement
of native-born whites by immigrants, policymakers sought to
reverse the trend among white women by enacting criminal bans
on abortion throughout this country.
And then finally, I will just note that some of the members
of this committee are among the 14 House Republicans who voted
against making Juneteenth a Federal holiday. When you fail to
take even this modest step to acknowledge the black experience
in this country, it is very difficult to take seriously your
claims that your support of flagrantly unconstitutional
abortion restrictions is animated by concern for black women
and our children.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Welch.
[Presiding.] The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon, is
recognized for five minutes.
[No response.]
Mr. Welch. I think you may be muted.
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chair, can you hear me?
Mr. Welch. We can now. Thank you.
Mr. Fallon. Oh, OK. Thank you so much. This committee is
the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and I don't understand
why we are now feeling compelled to oversee state governments
and completely abdicate our responsibility with the Federal
Government. And we have already considered H.R. 3755, so the
old saying about putting the cart before the horse, hell, the
horse is already in the barn. I don't see why we are having a
hearing after the fact, and there are so many other things that
we should be talking about. But I really have to take issue
with my colleague with the questioning. I thought it was
incredibly bush league to ask a witness of question and cut the
witness off after about four seconds. I wouldn't like it if a
Republican member did that. So, Dr. Skop, I would like to give
you a chance to actually answer that question that you were
asked a minute ago.
Dr. Skop. Yes. I believe it was related to what I had
written about my concerns about abortion in the black
community, and, again, this is not my lived experience. I am
not in any way trying to say that I understand the
circumstances, but I do know, as I stated earlier, that 67
percent of black children are born to unmarried mothers. We all
know that poverty is much, much higher for an unmarried mother,
and it is not unique to black men. There are many men across
the country who allow a woman the option of abortion, and if
they choose to have the child, they let them be the single
mother to raise the child. It is just the breakdown of the
family, and I think we could probably chase this subject around
all day, like, what has happened that families don't stay
together. But hopefully, we can all acknowledge that for the
sake of the children, having two parents in the home to help
each other out and to model wise behavior for the children,
and, in many cases, to bring in an income sufficient to keep
the family out of poverty, are all things that I would think we
would all aspire to.
So the article that was quoted was just my attempt to
explore some of these issues and how they might be linked to
abortion. Like I mentioned earlier, I am terribly concerned
that black women have a maternal mortality three times that of
white women. I think there are a number of factors we could
look at, including, again, poverty, genetic factors, lack of
support. I mean, it is a very nuanced conversation, and I wish
that people in the halls of power that had the ability to
change things were able to look into some of these nuances and
give some consideration to whether the policies that their
particular party promotes are always in the best interest of
women, children, families, men. But it is a big, big discussion
clearly.
Mr. Fallon. Absolutely. Have you ever come across any kind
of studies that could shed light on what the African-American
population of this country would be if there wasn't abortion in
this country?
Dr. Skop. Well, I have seen a figure that probably 18 to 20
million black babies have been aborted. Now, clearly, many of
those, had they gone to term, you know, I don't think we can
say necessarily that would be the increase in the population,
but I think that clearly we would have a much larger population
if these children were being born.
Mr. Fallon. Sure. Sure. You know, listen, in a perfect
world, I would think and hope that everyone could agree that
there wouldn't be abortion. I mean, I know that is hyperbolic,
but that would be the way I would want to go. And furthermore,
just in the last few seconds that I have, I just simply wish
that this committee would do more of what it is supposed to do.
We have a crisis on the border, and we have the origins of
COVID. Did it come out of a lab in China? All evidence points
to it other than a smoking gun that is only the preponderance
of the evidence, but beyond a shadow of a doubt that it
probably did. This is exactly what this committee should be
doing and looking at the border. And by the way, if COVID is a
threat, why do we let 1.5 million people that we don't know
into the country and they are not mandatory----
Mr. Welch. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Fallon.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Johnson, for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Within regular order,
I have been waiting for my opportunity to speak, and I want to
thank the chair for holding this very important hearing, which
is very timely as well. And I also want to thank each of the 11
witnesses for their testimony today. There is a reason why
there were no men testifying today. It is because this topic is
about women's freedom. At a time when we have Republicans
putting forward the proposition that individual freedom is at
risk because of COVID-19 masks and vaccine mandates, those very
same Republicans, talking out of the other side of their
mouths, those are the same Republicans, the majority of whom
are men, would deny women the freedom to make medical decisions
over their own bodies. How duplicitous and hypocritical is
that?
My opinion is that abortion is a medical issue, not a
political issue, and a woman should have the freedom to choose
whether to obtain this medical procedure, subject to certain
protections for a viable fetus that has grown from a fertilized
egg. I believe that Roe v. Wade provides a thoughtful
framework, the trimester analysis, to this human rights issue.
Pregnancy is a medical issue that is female-centric. In an
ideal world it would be only women who get to decide the
Nation's policies on this uniquely female medical procedure, or
at least women would make up the majority of those who seek to
control whether this medical procedure would be available to
them. But unfortunately, men have turned the issue of abortion
into a political issue, and men make up 73 percent of the
deciders here in Congress, and Republican deciders in Congress,
who are the main drivers politicizing abortions, are 86 percent
male. So much for women's freedom among Republicans.
It is beyond hypocritical for my Republican colleagues, who
profess to carry a philosophy of limited government, to support
laws that insert the government into the most private of
women's healthcare decisions. And that is why I was proud to
vote for the Women's Health Protection Act legislation that
would codify Roe v. Wade. We must act now to protect the
freedom women have to make their own healthcare decisions over
their own bodies. Ms. Ross, can you explain where abortion
restrictions and bans fit in the history of state control of
the bodies and reproductive autonomy of black women?
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Congressman. I live in Georgia, so I
am very proud of you.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Ms. Ross. I first have to remark on something that I
couldn't believe I heard out of somebody's mouth, and that is
that they want 18 million more black people in America when we
have got a few hundred thousand at the border that they won't
let in. But that is just me that notices the hypocrisy and the
ridiculousness of trying to make race-based arguments out of
the mouths of people who only enact race-based policies against
black people. So I will just let that go.
I think that it is very important for us to understand the
intersection of racial justice policies, and gender justice
policies, and reproductive justice policies, because you don't
understand why these bans on abortion are not about having more
black and brown babies born. They want more white babies to be
born, because if they can restrict abortion to black and brown
women, they would send limousines to take us to the clinic. I
know that for a fact. And whether or not you believe me, look
at the disparate treatment that our children get once they are
born, whether they go through a school-to-prison pipeline, or
have a property-tax-funded school system where, by definition,
poorer neighborhoods have poorer schools; the way we won't
address gun violence or lack of healthcare, environmental
problems, and lack of clean drinking water. I mean, when you
put it all together, you can't separate this fight for abortion
rights from the fight for voting rights, for civil rights, for
environmental justice.
And one thing that infuriates me is they think that we are
too simplistic, as if we are some enslaved people, who can't do
an analysis of what they are really saying when they talk out
of both sides of their mouths. There should be masks, by the
way, because like you say, they won't wear a mask to protect
public health, but they want to be in my bedroom and in my body
telling me what to do with that most private decision about
whether to commit my life to another person's life.
Ms. Johnson. It is inconsistent. Professor Murray, is it
your opinion----
Mr. Welch. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, first and
foremost, I do want to establish something. Abortion and the
decision any woman has to make with respect to an abortion is
probably one of the most emotional decisions that they will
ever encounter. I have had an opportunity to talk with and meet
with many women who have both gone through that decision and
have actually executed it and had the abortion and those who
went up to the line and chose not to have the abortion, and it
is heart wrenching. It is gut wrenching.
But we have a problem. The Oversight Committee has no
jurisdiction over what the state of Texas has done. Zero. This
is now the second time in this committee that we have listened
to an open hearing amongst this full committee about something
that the state of Texas has done through their legislative
capacity in their state. You see, the Oversight Committee's
jurisdiction, we are the main investigative committee of all of
the committees that exist here on Capitol Hill dealing with the
executive branch, with the U.S. Government, the Federal
Government. So we are talking about what has happened in Texas
with respect to their abortion law, or what we did several
months ago with the state of Texas with respect to their
election law, instead of actually covering, you know, COVID-19
and the American Rescue Plan, which are on the tabs for this
committee's website. The committee has not had one full hearing
dealing with either of those two issues.
The committee has not addressed the growing concern and
some of the growing scientific data that is coming up with
respect to natural immunity versus vaccinated immunity. The
committee has not heard at any time in the 117th Congress
anything dealing with that. The committee has not discussed the
fact that there are American citizens who are being compelled
to vaccinate or they will lose their job, whether they actually
have immunities from COVID-19 or not. The Oversight Committee
has not brought that up once. We are not even discussing it. It
is not something that the chairwoman is even thinking about
bringing.
We have not discussed the American Rescue Plan and the very
clear data that exists that the American Rescue Plan has put
downward pressure on small business owners to be able to hire
people to come back to work in their businesses all across the
country. We have definitely not discussed the southern border
and the over 1.5 million people who have entered the country
illegally this calendar year. We are not talking about the
children who are being trafficked by coyotes. We are not
talking about the billions of dollars that drug cartels are
making allowing people to cross our southern border illegally.
And last but not least, we have not talked about
Afghanistan in an open hearing, and I do want to acknowledge
what the chairwoman said earlier today. Yes, the committee has
had a classified briefing on Afghanistan. That briefing was a
joke. There was nothing that was disseminated in that briefing
that you couldn't find out on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC. There was
nothing in that briefing that, if you go and read other
classified reports, that what was in the classified briefing
was not as detailed as the classified reports. This committee
has not had an open hearing about Afghanistan considering the
fact that Afghanistan blew up in front of the face of the
American people and the world. And instead of holding
Afghanistan hearings in open session where members of this
committee, who are the main investigative arm of the U.S. House
of Representatives, I have found to be laughable.
We have not discussed, and I hope that the chairwoman would
actually hold a hearing on the fact, that Marine Lieutenant
Colonel Scheller is currently being held in the brig for
expressing his viewpoint on social media that there must be
accountability for what happened in Afghanistan. Yet at the
same time, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral
Milley, is walking around Capitol Hill while, in the meantime,
having conversations with Bob Woodward. And the Oversight
Committee is not discussing that.
What happens in the life of a woman is very personal. Very
personal. But what the state of Texas does, or the state of
California does, or the state of New York does is what happens
in those state legislatures and what those Governors sign. The
purpose of this committee is not to go back and second guess
what states are doing with respect to their legislative power
because that is actually in direct contravention to the
principle of federalism upon which the U.S. Government was
actually created and the United States Constitution was signed.
The framers of the Constitution would have never signed a
Constitution if it allowed this body and any other bodies to go
in and second guess legislation that was signed in several
states. Never would have happened.
Madam Chair, we have broad authority do so many things. I
only laid out a few today, but that is what we should be
investigating. We should not be going into the state of Texas,
and, frankly, we should not be using the committee's time to
create, frankly, political sidetracks over the other issues
that are existing in the United States today that the American
people want resolution to and they do want people to be held
accountable for. And with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman is aware that we have a subcommittee on this
committee that focuses only on COVID-19 and had a hearing
yesterday and many others on every aspect that you mentioned.
And you may not have thought that the classified briefing
should have been classified, but there were many government
officials there giving information about what was happening in
Afghanistan and the procedures and the process of helping our
allies be removed from Afghanistan and the status of the
machinery that was left there. Also very important.
And the gentleman may not think that the fate of half the
population of America is very important. I think it is very
important. We have efforts trying to nationalize a woman's
body, to make decisions about how their bodies are going to be
used and whether or not they can make decisions about their own
healthcare and their own reproductive rights. I find it
extremely important. You may not think it is important. I would
think that certainly half of America thinks it is important.
Certainly every woman is very concerned about her ability to
make decisions about her own healthcare.
With that, I now call on the gentleman----
Mr. Donalds. Will the chairwoman yield?
Chairwoman Maloney. I am calling on the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. The time is late, and we have many,
many more people who want to ask questions. Mr. Sarbanes, you
are now recognized.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity, and I want to echo what you just said about, first
of all, the committee's capacity to keep an eye on all of the
other issues that you just mentioned, but certainly the
appropriateness of our taking up this issue today. And I want
to salute the witnesses and thank them for their time. It has
been a long day, but the testimony has been powerful. I also
want to thank our colleagues who spoke on the first panel for
their very moving testimony and their leadership here in
Congress on this issue and many, many others.
I also want to thank the abortion care providers in
Maryland that I had a chance to work with when was an attorney
in private practice. I spent many years representing them and
was able to see up close, firsthand, personally, the amount of
attention, diligence, professionalism, and compassion that they
brought to their jobs and their responsibilities. And that
helped shape my perspective and commitment on this issue.
I want to come back and emphasize something we have heard
today. It has been sort of alluded to. I want to put a
punctuation mark on it. And that is that, in many respects,
this is all about power. We know that the wealthy, the white,
the privileged, in many instances will find their way around
abortion restrictions like the ones we are seeing in Texas.
That is just the way the world. And marginalized communities,
people of color will bear the brunt of these restrictions
typically. That is sadly the story of the struggle of people
from the beginning of time until now and probably a good way
into the future, but we can do something about that.
And if you connect the dots, you recognize that it is the
same communities that suffer from lack of access to healthcare,
to environmental justice, to racial justice at the hands of
police, to economic opportunity, and now to abortion care, are
communities that lack political power. And it is no accident
that in Texas, not only are we seeing these restrictions on
abortion care, but we are seeing restrictions in the form of
extreme partisan gerrymandering that has been undertaken by
Republicans in that state, voter suppression efforts which are
designed to diminish the voices of certain communities. So this
is all connected, and we have to acknowledge that, be candid
about it, and find out ways to fight back against that agenda.
We talk about choice, but there is an asymmetry here
because I have heard my colleagues on the other side talk about
how a choice was made to take a child to term to have a baby.
For my colleagues on the other side, choice is OK as long as
the choice is one that they agree you should make, but if you
make a different choice, the agenda is to restrict that, limit
that, ban that choice. Choice is about agency. It is about a
voice. It is about justice. It is about power. It is about
mutual respect.
So, Ms. Ross, I would like to come back to you because your
comments have been the most direct, I think the most powerful
on that topic of power, agency, respect. And I would like you
to just comment on that one more time in the context of this
idea of a woman's right to choose.
Ms. Ross. For me, I like the fact that we are now bringing
attention to the overlooked power of women to make the choices
that make sense for them and their families, because that is
what people like to overlook, that we are not just talking
about people capable of becoming pregnant as if we are vessels.
We are citizens, human beings with full human rights, and there
are people who are dedicated to thinking that we become less
human, or less citizen, or less capable of thinking clearly
when we become pregnant. But every one of these people came
from a mother who was able to think and was able to actually,
you know, have her rights protected, and if she didn't have her
rights protected, they should have been.
So I am fighting for myself, but I am fighting for my
family, my children, my grandchild, and everybody else because
we are not going to be subhuman citizens just because somebody
thinks that they have the right to tell me what I should do in
my bedroom and with my family in a way that doesn't have my
family's best interests in mind.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Keller is back. OK. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Keller, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. Today's hearing, it is
not about healthcare and it is not about protecting women or
their children. Today's hearing is about weaponizing a radical
pro-abortion agenda against states that seek to protect women
and the unborn. When two healthy people enter a doctor's office
and only one comes out, that is not healthcare.
When Roe v. Wade was decided, the scientific consensus was
that a baby had to be 24 weeks old to experience pain. However,
we know that this is not true, that babies can feel pain as
early as 12 weeks. Unfortunately, this is why the U.S. is only
one of the very few countries that allow elective abortion past
20 weeks, after life begins. Dr. Skop, modern-day science and
research have changed our knowledge on the true point of
viability. Do you believe the laws surrounding viability should
be updated as well?
Dr. Skop. Absolutely. I think we need to acknowledge the
science that we have experienced since Roe and amend our
abortion legislation accordingly.
Mr. Keller. OK. Thank you. And also we have heard in
today's hearing that abortions have gotten safer over the
years. I can't imagine how that is possible when the baby
doesn't come out of the procedure. But when we are talking
about the procedure having gotten safer over the years, is that
true that it has gotten safer for the mother?
Dr. Skop. It has gotten safer. Along the way, our surgical
skills have improved. Our anesthetic skills have improved,
antibiotics. We just have evidence-based medicine that is more
advanced than it was back at the time of Roe. But it should be
noted that although it is commonly stated 5 to 10,000 women
died from septic abortions yearly before Roe, that number is
not reflected in any of the medical literature at that time.
The American Medical Association and the CDC document 1 or a
couple hundred deaths, which is still way too many, but it was
not as dangerous even prior to Roe, but that was just used as a
talking point in order to get the procedure legalized.
Mr. Keller. Can you explain if there are any physical risks
associated with chemical abortions?
Dr. Skop. The biggest immediate risk is not passing the
tissue completely, having a hemorrhage, requiring a surgery.
There was a large study, a Chinese study, I believe, that
looked at women who had medical abortions who failed, who
needed surgery. And in that small group, they found a 361-
percent increased risk of pre-term birth in a subsequent
pregnancy. So the worst scenario is to do both, to have a
medical abortion that fails and then to have surgery as well.
Additionally, rat studies have shown us that, independent of
what the rat thinks about the abortion, mifepristone increases
the rat behaviors that are reflective of anxiety and
depression. Many of the deaths that have occurred after
mifepristone have been from an unusual type of sepsis from an
organism called clostridium sordellii. Both misoprostol and
mifepristone impair the immune system of a woman and so put
them at higher risk of infections.
Mr. Keller. Just if I can just ask another question. On top
of the serious physical risks associated with medical
abortions, we know that the process is long and can be
emotionally traumatizing for expecting mothers. Can you speak
on the emotional impact this process can have on mothers?
Dr. Skop. Sure. One thing that is not really discussed is
that an eight-week fetus is about the size and shape of a gummy
bear. It is clearly human. You can see arms, you can see legs,
and you can see a head, and women are passing those in their
toilet, and they are seeing their unborn baby. So they are not
going to tell anybody that they saw that, but can you imagine
the emotional trauma of seeing your own child?
Mr. Keller. I can't imagine that. I think it is clear now
more than ever that every life is precious and worth
protecting. I would just urge my colleagues to stand for life.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized for
five minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you Madam Chair, and I want to thank the
witnesses for their powerful testimony today. I have been on
this hearing from the beginning, and it is just interesting
some of the stuff I have heard. One thing is the conversation
about how the witness has been treated. I have been on this
committee for nine years, and I have seen horrendous treatment
of Democratic witnesses. I don't know the person that said
that, if the people saying it are very new, but there has been
horrendous treatment, and I do agree that witnesses should be
treated with respect. Also, when we talk about science and
scientific advancement, we use it as it is convenient because
if we want to talk about climate change and vaccinations, we
don't talk about what the science is saying.
So along with a draconian state law, like S.B. 8 in Texas,
harmful Federal restrictions on abortion coverage have left too
many individuals without equal access to abortion care. Under
current law, nearly 29 million women covered by Federal health
insurance plans who are treated by Federal providers lack
insurance coverage for abortion services. This includes the
almost 14 million low-income women who access healthcare
through Medicaid, half of whom are women of color. Professor
Ross, how do Federal abortion coverage restrictions
disproportionately harm people with less income and communities
of color? And thank you for being honest and straightforward
and speaking truth to power.
Ms. Ross. Well, thank you for your question. I was
fortunate enough to be in Washington, DC. in 1970 when I needed
an abortion as a student at Howard University, and Washington,
DC. legalized abortion in 1970, three years before Roe v. Wade.
So I was able to go to the Washington Hospital Center and have
a perfectly safe late-term abortion, by the way, because my
mother refused to sign the permission slip for many, many
months. But then three years later, Roe was passed, and then a
few years later the Hyde Amendment passed, which restricts the
use of Federal funds for abortion services for people whose
healthcare is provided by the Federal Government. And that is
women in the military, women who get their services through the
Indian Health Services, poor women, and all of those things.
So ever since the Hyde Amendment was enacted, people whose
healthcare was provided by the Federal Government have been
treated as second-class citizens.
Ms. Kelly. Right.
Ms. Ross. And they are discriminated against because of how
their healthcare is provided, not their medical conditions, but
because they are either serving our country in the military, on
a reservation where they have to use the IHS, or poor women, or
in the Peace Corps and those kinds of things.
Ms. Kelly. Right.
Ms. Ross. And so it should be a constitutional violation to
set up second-class citizenship for people simply through a
regulation called the Hyde Amendment. And this is something
that we as black women have been fighting since it was
proposed, since it was enacted.
Ms. Kelly. Right.
Ms. Ross. And the All Above All Campaign is fighting to
remove that Hyde Amendment because----
Ms. Kelly. Well----
Ms. Ross [continuing]. We really, really should not have it
legal to set up a class of people as second-class citizens.
Ms. Kelly. Well, that is why I am proud to co-sponsor the
EACH Act----
Ms. Ross. Right.
Ms. Kelly [continuing]. A bill that would reverse the Hyde
Amendment and other related Federal abortion coverage
restrictions for good. Ms. Aziz, how would the EACH Act impact
the communities that Texas Equal Access Fund serves?
Ms. Aziz. Thank you for your question, but I would like to
say I think it is a question better answered by a legal expert
that we are fortunate to have on this panel, if that is OK.
Ms. Kelly. Sure. Ms. Murray, you can answer.
Ms. Murray. It is my understanding that the Texas law would
provide a cause of action against any individual who aids and
abets someone in performing an abortion or seeking an abortion,
and it is written incredibly broadly. So as I have said in
media reports, this could mean that the barista who overhears
you speaking about your abortion could take a cause of action
and file suit against you. It also means that anyone who
provides aid through these abortion funds or even donates to
Planned Parenthood anywhere in the country could ostensibly be
a defendant in a lawsuit because, again, the law is so broadly
written, and that is purposeful to dismantle that network of
support for pregnant persons.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. I wish to submit two documents into
the record representing indisputable evidence that abortion is
safe, common, and an essential component of healthcare. The
first is the amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court
in the case of Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Dobbs by
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on
behalf of 25 medical organizations demonstrating the concrete
medical consensus of opposition to abortion restrictions. The
second is a statement from ACOG with more than 62,000 members.
ACOG is the Nation's authoritative body in the development of
standards of care for women's health. It is evidence-based
clinical guidelines developed by experts in the field. And ACOG
states that ``safe legal abortion is a necessary component of
comprehensive healthcare, and government-imposed obstacles
marginalize abortion services from routine clinical care and
are harmful to people's health and well-being.''
Let me be clear. Any statement to the contrary in today's
hearings are not based on science or medical evidence. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence, is now
recognized for five minutes. Mrs. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just want to
start off my short period of time here to put it simply. Anti-
abortion policies do not stop abortions. What it does is stop
safe and legal abortions where a woman can go and get an
abortion safely in a safe medical procedure. Now, let's be
clear. When we talk about abortions, there has always been
abortion for a number of reasons, and I would like to preface
my comments. God blessed me with two pregnancies. I was
married, I had resources, and I was healthy, and I gave birth
to two healthy children. But I will never step down from the
fact that if I were a victim of rape, incest, or if I had to
look my husband in the eye and say, it is the baby or me, that
I would have a choice. And the ability for a woman to make a
decision about the care or the ability to bring a child in this
world is something I do not feel rests with the government.
And it is interesting to me when I hear the debate about
the care and the stress level I heard the witness talk about,
have you ever examined and looked at the impact of children
that are born into a situation where there was no care? We know
that the rate of foster children is growing, children born
addicted, all of these things that, unfortunately, many people
who call themselves anti-choice are not pro-life for those who
are living and walking on earth. I have a question, Ms. Ross, I
will ask you. How has the ACA helped improve access and health
outcomes for women?
Ms. Ross. When I was working at Sister Song, the National
Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, we were very
much involved in supporting the passage of the Affordable Care
Act because it widely expanded healthcare options for the
American public. And it immediately had an impact of providing
healthcare for many people who otherwise could not afford it.
And unfortunately, it took us from the 1930's till now to even
do that modest healthcare reform, and we still are not through
because we know that every human being has a human right to
healthcare, and one of our pathways is going to be to achieve
universal healthcare.
And once we do, we will make sure that people who need the
healthcare, who may be afraid to access it because they don't
have citizenship papers or who are afraid to reveal to their
abusers that they need prenatal care, we will cover everybody
with an expanded universal healthcare system for which the
Affordable Care Act is on the path to that.
I am sorry. That is my airline trying to reach me----
Mrs. Lawrence. OK.
Ms. Ross [continuing]. To schedule my flight because I am
here all day. That's all right. But it has been a real benefit
and a human right that is too long overdue, but we need more,
and we are not going to stop asking for more.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Ms. Ross. I want the record to
reflect that approximately 700 women, mostly of color, die each
year from childbirth-related cases. However, when we bring
forth maternal mortality bills and laws, I don't see my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle with the same passion
that they have for women who are dying in childbirth. When we
talk about programs like SNAP, so once a baby is born, how do
we feed them and how do we use the Title X family planning
program that would allow women to have access to medical
resources to allow them to plan their family so that they can
give birth at a time where they are mentally, physically, and
economically ready to care for that child? We hear insults on
our social network of how we are taking care of people. Well,
you know what? If we had more family planning--not abortions--
family planning--we could reduce the amount of money that we
spend in the social network.
With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back, and the
vice chair of the committee, Mr. Gomez, Representative Gomez,
from California, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to also just
add to what my colleague, Mrs. Lawrence, just said. The
Republicans, the other side of the aisle, they love to talk
about life, but they talk about life in what I call the
bookends of a person's life--their birth and their death--but
they really don't pay much attention to the life that occurs in
between. And every single time that they are given an
opportunity to choose life of how somebody is going to live
their life, they vote no. When they have an opportunity to
expand Medicaid, which 50 percent of all births are paid
through Medicaid, they vote no. And what does that do? Well, it
has a disproportionate and discriminatory effect on people of
color, mostly black women who are four times as likely as a
white woman to die at childbirth, than their white
counterparts.
But you know what? They are the party of life, but yet when
they have an opportunity to choose the life of a black woman,
to expand Medicaid and postpartum care, they vote no. So their
hypocrisy that they choose life is astounding at best and
cynical at worst. If they want to choose life, they should care
about how that person is living. They should vote to make the
child tax credit that we helped expand and make it refundable,
they should vote ``yes'' because then you are lifting 50
percent of the children out of poverty. We should choose life,
not just at the bookends, but in between, and this is what the
Republicans have always done. When you are born, after that,
you are on your own. You know, pull yourself up by the
bootstraps even though you might not even have baby shoes or
boots to pull yourself up by, and that is if your mother
survived the birth. So I find it always offensive when they
talk about that.
So let's go on to S.B. 8, and we know that S.B. 8 is not
the only way the Texas state government has sought to undermine
abortion access. Long before S.B. 8, Texas and many other
states deployed targeted restrictions on providers, or trap
laws, to curtail access. Dr. Moayedi, how have these trap laws
affected your ability to deliver abortion care?
Dr. Moayedi. As I have stated previously, these trap laws
affect every single aspect of my care. I did want to speak, if
it is OK, Representative Gomez, about a conversation that
happened earlier relating to black maternal mortality that I
can't let go. That conversation between the good doctor and, I
believe, Representative Fallon discussed how black maternal
mortality is a result of genetic factors and poverty. This is
incredibly disturbing to hear from a physician because we know
that race is a social construct. It is not genetically coded.
And to say that genetic factors lead to increased rates of
black maternal mortality is actually a direct extension of the
eugenics movement, which the other side seems to be very much
against but continues to use their talking points.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you. It is interesting. I always talk
about the randomness of birth, that God doesn't give one
population--He doesn't make them smarter. He doesn't make them
more talented. He doesn't give all the attributes of what it
means to have a healthy and successful life to one population
versus another.
Dr. Moayedi. Yes.
Mr. Gomez. That is within the law of nature to be
distributed, right? But, for some reason, they believe that
that is not the case. And if it is randomized, if people all
have talents and abilities, then why do we see the disparities
that we actually see?
Dr. Moayedi. So, for example, the reason that black
maternal mortality rates are so high in our country are
directly a result of white supremacist systems in our medical
institutions. And so if we worked together, all of us, to
dismantle white supremacy, we would actually be seeing better
health outcomes for black people, indigenous people, and
immigrants like the people from my family.
Mr. Gomez. And that is exactly the point, that all these
health outcomes that are negative for black women, minorities,
indigenous people, are a result of policy decisions that have
been made for generation upon generation. And if we actually
have different decisions made, we can change the outcomes, not
because of somebody's genetics, not because of where they live,
but because of how we make different policy decisions to get
different results.
With that, my time is up, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back, and I now
recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer, who is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to begin by
asking unanimous consent to submit for the record a few
letters. The first letter is from the Students for Life Action
expressing----
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Mr. Comer [continuing]. Support for life.
Mr. Comer. Second, Madam Chair, I would like to submit to
the record all of the letters that we have sent to you
requesting hearings on various topics that Republicans on the
Oversight Committee feel are of the utmost importance. And
last, Madam Chair, I would like to submit to the record all
these letters that Republicans on the Oversight Committee have
sent to the Biden Administration requesting information, none
of which have been responded from the Administration. And,
again, that is the role of this committee to provide oversight
for the executive branch.
So without objection, Madam Chair, I ask for unanimous
consent to submit them to the record.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Mr. Comer. And, Dr. Skop, thank you so much for being here
today. Let me apologize for how some on the other side of the
aisle, particularly the men on the other side of the aisle, a
few of the men have treated you during this hearing. I would
like to remind everyone that you are an OB/GYN. You are not an
attorney. You are not an expert on amicus briefs or any of the
other questioning that they were asking you. I would like to
give you my time to respond to anything that you feel hasn't
been adequately addressed or any information that you perhaps
disagreed with that was stated by anyone else in this hearing.
And with that, I will turn it over to you.
Dr. Skop. There are two statements I want to make. One was
this recent discussion that, maybe I misunderstood, but I think
were you trying to say that there are not genetic differences
amongst different ethnic groups? Because I think the CDC would
probably beg to differ because there are quite easy-to-locate
evidence that there are some groups that have higher incidence
of obesity, some that have higher incidence of diabetes, some
that have higher incidence of hypertension. And are you saying
you don't think that that is the case? I mean, that is just not
very scientific.
Dr. Moayedi. Yes, ma'am. Race is not genetically coded in
the way that you are saying, and all of those are conditions of
white supremacy, not of someone's inferior genetic capacity.
Dr. Skop. Oh. OK. OK. I mean, I thought we were here to
discuss science instead of just preferences.
Dr. Moayedi. That is very much built into science.
Mr. Comer. White supremacy comes up a lot in this hearing,
yes.
Dr. Skop. Yes, I would actually----
Mr. Comer. In this committee.
Dr. Skop. Maybe if you have time to talk afterwards, I
would love to hear how that works because I just haven't----
Mr. Comer. It is climate change and everything around here
but go ahead.
Dr. Skop. Now, I think I might have forgotten the other
thought I had, but I appreciate it. You guys have given me a
lot of opportunity to talk today and thank you for hearing me.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. And I just
want to really say that everyone has given incredible testimony
today, and I need to read something in. There is still someone?
No, this hearing has been going on. It is three. We still
haven't heard from everyone?
And the gentlelady from Massachusetts is a leader on this
issue in the Women's Caucus and on this committee. Ms.
Pressley, you are now recognized.
Ms. Pressley. Reclaiming my time. Thank you. You know, for
our most marginalized communities, the right to abortion
guaranteed by Roe v. Wade has really only been a right in name
only. Abortion bans, including coverage bans like the Hyde
Amendment, keep abortion out of reach for millions,
particularly low-income, black, indigenous, and communities of
color who already face systemic barriers to healthcare.
Professor Ross, I will afford you the opportunity to elaborate
on the roots and the impacts of white supremacy and how
abortion bans like this are rooted in patriarchy, white
supremacy, and perpetuate systemic racism. Could you speak to
that? Can you briefly explain the ways in which abortion bans
and restrictions are rooted in patriarchy, white supremacy, and
perpetuate systemic racism?
[No response.]
Ms. Pressley. OK.
Ms. Ross. Is that----
Ms. Pressley. OK.
Ms. Ross. I don't know if that is directed toward me, so.
Ms. Pressley. OK. Actually, you know what? Since you
started with that, Dr. Moayedi, will you pick up on that?
Dr. Moayedi. Sure, and I would love to hear from Professor
Ross on that, too. But, I mean, yes, from the founding of this
country, reproductive coercion was used as a method of
controlling enslaved women and creating more people to be
enslaved. Children were separated from Indian families and sent
to Indian boarding schools as a method of genocide and control
over those families, and that history continues today. We see
that history time and time again in how our medical structures
are created and how we actually think about race and medicine,
how we actually have physicians that think that high blood
pressure is because of your race and not because of the stress
of racism in our country.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you very much. Ms. Aziz, in your
capacity with the Texas Equal Access Fund, you are on the front
lines in the fight to ensure abortion access for all. We know
that there are some common financial challenges that your
clients face as they attempt to access abortion care, including
childcare, transportation, housing, people being forced to
travel out of state. Can you speak to how the Hyde Amendment
pushes those already out of reach further out of reach when it
comes to access? Speak to the racist and discriminatory
implement implications of it, please.
Ms. Aziz. Thank you for your question. So absolutely. I
mean, the Hyde Amendment is in place as a tool to discriminate
against minorities because people that are wealthy will always
have access to abortions. You know, even in their case, I think
their access should be easier because I think abortion should
be easy to access no matter what, but the wealthy will always
be able to access abortion because they can hop on a flight.
They can take time off. They can afford to lose wages if it is,
you know, for two weeks or so. There are things that people
that have more money are able to do. However, for minorities,
for people in rural areas, for minors, for trans folks, for any
sort of vulnerable community again, you know, I just want to
remind people that it is not just women that have abortions.
And when we keep saying ``women,'' we are excluding a lot of
people from the conversation, so I so just want to bring it
back to that.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Ms. Aziz. Thank you. And so,
again, given these cost-prohibitive barriers here and the
impact of things like the Hyde Amendment, which push care
further and further out of reach, abortion funds have really
been standing in the gap of that, but it is long past time that
Congress eliminate the Hyde Amendment. Earlier this year the
House made progress in doing just that by passing a historic
budget without Hyde, but the Senate absolutely needs to follow
suit, and this moment really demands it. Dr. Moayedi, the
impact of these abortion bans are not limited to those residing
in the states where they are in effect. As a provider who is on
the ground, can you share how the ripple effects may be
impacting broader abortion access across the Nation?
Dr. Moayedi. Yes. Thank you so much for asking that. Just
this week I was in Oklahoma City providing care not only for
people in Oklahoma, but for people from as far as San Antonio,
Texas. That is over eight hours to drive for care. Ordinarily,
when I provide care in Oklahoma City, maybe 7 to 10 percent of
the people in our clinic are from Texas, and specifically the
North Texas area. This week, over 70 percent of the people I
took care of were from Texas. That means also that those clinic
spaces and appointments for people in Oklahoma are moving
outside of the state as well. I would also like to remind
people that prior to S.B. 8, Texas was a place where people
would come for abortion care, too, specifically from Louisiana,
and so that is pushing that care from Louisiana outside of
Texas as well.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Without objection, Ms. Shrier is authorized to participate in
today's hearing, and she is now recognized.
Ms. Shrier. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses. Thank you for allowing me to waive on to the
committee today. As a mom, and a pediatrician, and a woman,
this issue is very important to me, and I am really glad that
we had a couple physicians here today to discuss this critical
personal and medical matter. And I wanted to just start with a
little level setting, so a quick ``yes'' or ``no,'' Dr.
Moayedi. First, thank you for coming today. You are a
practicing OB/GYN in Texas.
Dr. Moayedi. Yes.
Ms. Shrier. And a little bit in Oklahoma.
Dr. Moayedi. Yes.
Ms. Shrier. And, Dr. Moayedi, when you were getting your
medical degree, I presume you and Dr. Skop both took an oath to
care for your patients. Is that correct?
Dr. Moayedi. That is correct.
Ms. Shrier. And I have just a question regarding the six-
week issue. Dr. Moayedi, in a typical OB/GYN practice that has
full scope of care, provides prenatal care, how many of those
patients who are newly pregnant show up before six weeks?
Dr. Moayedi. In a typical OB/GYN practice that is not a
clinic providing abortion care, the typical entry into prenatal
care is at around 14 weeks.
Ms. Shrier. Oh, and that makes sense because many women
don't know they are pregnant at the six-week mark. Thank you
for clarifying that. You know, I would like to talk about my
perspective on this, again, as a doctor like you who has taken
an oath to protect my patients, and all three of us, again,
have taken that oath. Can I just clarify, who is the patient
that you take an oath to protect?
Dr. Moayedi. Any patient that seeks care from me.
Ms. Shrier. The woman.
Dr. Moayedi. Yes. Yes.
Ms. Shrier. The person who seeks care from you. I was going
to ask Dr. Skop the same thing just to clarify that it is the
woman she is taking care of. And ultimately, in my view,
abortion exists in many ways to protect women. It is a
healthcare decision that a woman makes with her doctor. And,
frankly, if women can be trusted to raise children, teach
children, doctor children, they can certainly be trusted to
make, or we can be trusted to make, our own healthcare
decisions and we certainly deserve the autonomy to make those
decisions.
Pregnancy and childbirth, let's make no mistake, present
really big risks: risks to the woman's health, to her life, to
her independence, perhaps to her education, her ability to feed
her other children, to keep a job, to make ends meet, and,
frankly, even sadly, safety from abuse from a partner or a
parent. And as a doctor, I am horrified by this new law in
Texas and others like it which essentially ban abortions, but
this one also creates a system of modern-day bounty hunters--
neighbors, ex-boyfriends, anybody with a grudge--to enforce
state law and profit from it to the tune of $10,000 or more
each. And these laws undermine the oath that we take to our
patients and that trust, and it criminalizes doctors in the
process. And, you know, these are politicians invading the exam
room and telling doctors how to do our jobs, and, frankly,
encouraging us, making us violate an oath that we have taken.
Finally, I just wanted to mention, let's not kid ourselves.
Abortion will continue, but with laws like these, it will not
be safe and it will not be legal. And make no mistake. This
puts women's lives at risk just like 50 years ago when women
would die from this, and it takes away women's freedom to chart
the course of their lives, which we all deserve to have. So as
the only pro-choice woman doctor in Congress, I just want you
to know that I will always stand with women against draconian,
non-medically justified barriers to women's access to abortion,
and I sure hope that others like you will as well.
Dr. Moayedi. Thank you.
Ms. Shrier. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. and without
objection, Ms. Escobar is authorized to participate in this
hearing. Congresswoman Escobar, you are now recognized.
Ms. Escobar. Chairwoman Maloney, thank you so much for the
privilege of waiving on to your committee. I am so grateful to
be here today. I also want to express my deepest gratitude to
our witnesses, especially those who have hung through the
entire hearing, a very lengthy hearing with so much to discuss.
Madam Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the
record a number of statements from Texas women, from providers,
from nonprofits and organizations, who will be impacted by this
draconian law.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection. And thank you for
submitting them.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair. I represent El Paso,
Texas, a community on the safe and secure, beautiful U.S.-
Mexico border, and I want to say a couple things about the
state that I live in and where we live in. In Texas, the very
Republicans who have pushed this draconian piece of legislation
have the audacity to call themselves pro-life. However, their
actions don't connote any respect or reverence for life
whatsoever. In Texas, we have an unacceptably high maternal
morbidity rate. Absolutely unacceptable. And Republicans who
have been in charge of the state legislature have been sitting
on their hands as pregnant women continue to die.
Texas children live in generational inequity and poverty
because in Texas, the level of education a child gets depends
on the zip code that they live in. And we live in a state that
not only limits children's access to healthcare and their
families' access to healthcare, but we live in a state that is
trying to eliminate access to healthcare altogether through its
lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act. We live in a state
with a Governor who prohibits mask mandates in Texas schools in
order to protect the lives of Texas children. We live in a
state with Republican leadership that was essentially silent as
the prior Administration separated children from their parents
under some of the most heinous anti-immigrant policies that we
have ever seen in our generation. We live in a state where
Republicans oppose access to sex education and contraception in
order to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
So the problem is not just Texas Republicans. Here in
Congress, the same Republicans who support S.B. 8 and this
draconian legislation unanimously, and frequently, and
repeatedly oppose pro-child, pro-family legislation, such as
the child tax credit, access to childcare, access to housing,
and a number of other Democratic-led policies that help enrich
and save and create healthy families. They oppose these
policies. This is not what I would call pro-life. We should not
allow them to get away with calling themselves pro-life. Pro-
birth maybe in some cases, but certainly not pro-life.
Dr. Moayedi, we know that these draconian laws do not end
abortion. In fact, we heard earlier, the first panel, we heard
from my colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who talked about
what she had to do in order to have access to a choice that she
was forced to make, a very personal choice that she had to
disclose here in front of all of Congress and in front of the
American public. But she also talked about the way women, her
peers, were dying because they could not have access to safe,
legal abortions. Can you tell me, as Republicans seek to turn
back the clock by decades on women and women's access to care,
what will it do to women who will take their reproductive
healthcare into their own hands?
Dr. Moayedi. Thank you for that question. I trained in El
Paso for four years, and my child was born there as well. So
thankfully today at least, we have safe medications that people
can access. Mifepristone, misoprostol can be safely taken and
you don't need a physician to take them. And so the concern
with laws that criminalize or illegalize abortion today is not
so much around the safety because some people will be able to
access safe medications, but around what happens to people that
do access those medicines. We know already that black and brown
bodies are over-criminalized and over-policed in this country,
and we know that people that seek those medications when they
are illegal or not legally available are going to suffer the
consequences through the criminal legal system.
I do want to tell a story, though. About two years ago,
three, in our last legislative session in Texas, a bill was
introduced that would make providing abortion care a felony and
give the physician and the patient, the person seeking an
abortion, the death penalty. Now, that bill didn't make it very
far, but that very week that it was being discussed, a patient
came and saw me and said, Doc, I know that I am going to get
the death penalty for this, but I need this abortion.
You know, I provide this care and I am trusted by my
neighbors to provide this care to them, and I do it out of a
duty to care for my neighbors. But that really as a mom hit me
very hard that people, you know, might be confused about what
the law is, but still want to come in for that care no matter
the consequences. And I think it is important to understand
that abortion and birth, they are not separate. They are part
of a continuum, and as long people have had birth, they have
had abortions, and we are not going to end them through laws.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you both for your leadership. Madam
Chair, I am out of time. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Your time has expired. And in closing,
I want to thank all of the panelists for their incredible
remarks and insights, and I want to commend my colleagues for
participating in this important conversation. Votes have been
called, so we will be adjourning. But before we adjourn, I want
to quickly take care of a one piece of administrative business.
At the request of the ranking member, Ms. Mace will now
serve as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties.
Without objection, so ordered.
With that and without objection, all members will have five
legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials
and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to
the chair, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their
response. I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as
they are able.
Chairwoman Maloney. And with that, this important hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:14 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]