[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE IMPACT OF THE SUPREME COURT'S
DOBBS DECISION ON ABORTION RIGHTS
AND ACCESS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 13, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-91
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-120PDF 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 Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Pat Fallon, Texas
Georgia Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California Mike Flood, Nebraska
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Russ Anello, Staff Director
Ben Smith, Chief Health Counsel,
Amy Stratton, Deputy Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 13, 2022.................................... 1
Witnesses
Fatima Goss Graves, President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Women's Law Center
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Mallory McMorrow, State Senator, Michigan State Senate
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Renitta Shannon, State Representative, Georgia House of
Representatives
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Michele Bratcher Goodwin, Chancellor's Professor of Law,
University of California, Irvine
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Erin Morrow Hawley, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Sarah Lopez, Abortion Storyteller, We Testify, Youth Program
Manager, Jane's Due Process
Oral Statement............................................... 12
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
----------
* Letter from Wisconsin Family Action; submitted by Rep.
Grothman.
* Article from Detroit Free Press, ``Protesters descend on
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's home after dark;''
submitted by Rep. Tlaib.
* Article from the Seattle Times, ``Man suspected of hate crime
for allegedly threatening to kill U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal;''
submitted by Rep. Tlaib.
* Letter from Susan B. Anthony, Pro-Life America; submitted by
Rep. Keller.
* Findings from The Turnaway Study; submitted by Rep. Porter.
* Article from Fox News, ``Red states with abortion bans could
`lose economic edge,' warns New York Times;'' submitted by Rep.
Biggs.
* Article from Fox News, ``71% of Americans support abortion
restrictions: poll;'' submitted by Rep. Clyde.
* National Women's Law Center Annual Report FY 2015-2016;
submitted by Rep. Clyde.
* Letter from NARAL; submitted by Chairwoman Maloney.
* Letter from Pro-Choice America; submitted by Chairwoman
Maloney.
* Letter from Physicians for Reproductive Health; submitted by
Chairwoman Maloney.
* Letter from American Academy of Family Physicians; submitted
by Chairwoman Maloney.
* Letter from Professor Carrie Baker of Smith College;
submitted by Chairwoman Maloney.
The documents listed are available at: docs.house.gov.
THE IMPACT OF THE SUPREME COURT'S
DOBBS DECISION ON ABORTION RIGHTS
AND ACCESS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES
----------
Wednesday, July 13, 2022
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
room 2154 of the Rayburn House Office Building and over Zoom,
Hon. Carolyn Maloney [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly,
Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Mfume, Tlaib, Porter, Bush,
Brown, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Welch, Johnson, Sarbanes,
Speier, Kelly, Lawrence, DeSaulnier, Gomez, Pressley, Comer,
Jordan, Foxx, Hice, Grothman, Cloud, Higgins, Norman, Keller,
Biggs, Donalds, Mace, LaTurner, Clyde, and Franklin.
Chairwoman Maloney. 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.
We are holding today's hearing at a moment when women
across America are feeling sorrow, anger, and disbelief.
Nineteen days ago, a right-wing majority on the Supreme Court
fulfilled the Republican Party's decades-long goal of
overturning Roe v. Wade, and stripped away a constitutional
right relied on by generations of American women. The goal of
these right-wing extremists is clear: to control the bodies of
women, girls, and any person who can become pregnant. To be
even more clear, the Dobbs decision means the government can
now order people to stay pregnant on pain of criminal
punishment. Many of us have been warning about this day for
years as states have steadily chipped away at the right to
abortion.
In 2019, my first hearing as chair of this committee, we
examined how draconian restrictions in states like Missouri,
were closing down abortion providers. Last year, we held a
hearing on the six-week abortion ban in Texas, which turns
private citizens into bounty hunters, encouraging them to sue
anyone they suspect of helping someone in need of an abortion.
Now the Supreme Court has bulldozed straight through our rights
with this extreme, dangerous, and undemocratic decision. We are
already seeing the disastrous effects of this decision as
states begin criminalizing abortion. Abortion is now illegal in
16 states and anti-abortion legislators in other states are
rushing to follow suit, threatening to make abortion
inaccessible for an estimated 33 million women across the
country. Doctors and patients in these states are afraid and
confused about what this radical decision means for providing
and receiving critical healthcare. Women are worried about
having miscarriages or pregnancy complications for fear they
may be investigated or prosecuted for getting the care they
desperately need.
Of course, abortion is still legal in many states,
including my home state of New York, thanks to Democrats
fighting for women's rights. But for people who can't afford to
take time off of work and pay for childcare and travel
expenses, going to another state to receive abortion care is
simply not an option. We know that abortion bans and
restrictions will disproportionately harm people of color,
people with low incomes, young people, LGBTQI+ individuals, and
undocumented people and so many mores.
Today, we are going to hear about the terrible consequences
of restricting and criminalizing abortion. We will hear from
those who are personally impacted and from state legislators
who are on the front lines of defending access to abortion.
Today's hearing is especially important because Republicans are
not going to stop with Dobbs. They are openly planning to
impose a national ban on abortion. The damage that would cause
is inconceivable. As we hear about the impact of the loss of
abortion rights today, I would like to ask those watching our
hearing, a simple question. Is this the country we want for our
children? Do we want a country where our children have fewer
rights than we did, or do we want to live in a country that
respects and trusts women to make the best choices for
themselves and their families?
The answer is clear. Americans overwhelmingly support the
right to an abortion. Democrats in Congress, we hear you. We
stand with you and we are fighting for you. The House has
already passed the Women's Health Protection Act, which would
establish a statutory right to abortion, and this week, we will
pass an updated version that directly responds to Dobbs. Next,
the Senate must act, and we should not let filibuster rules
stand in the way. We also need to expand access to medication
abortion. Congresswoman Pressley and I have worked with the
Biden administration to eliminate barriers to the safe, FDA-
approved method of ending an early pregnancy. I have also
introduced legislation to crack down on anti-abortion
disinformation and to protect access to contraception at the
pharmacy counter. President Biden signed an executive order
last week to protect and expand access to abortion and all
reproductive healthcare, and we stand ready to support his
efforts.
Democrats are committed to restoring abortion rights and
access that the right-wing Supreme Court has taken away, and we
will never stop fighting until it is restored.
I now yield to Ranking Member Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are having a hearing
today on a Supreme Court decision, a decision that came at the
end of a legal process. To be clear, the Dobbs decision did not
outlaw abortion. Instead, it returned the issue to the states
for the people to decide. Yet Democrats charge the Supreme
Court as somehow destroying our democracy by strengthening our
democratic process. They have spent the last two months
attacking the legitimacy of the Court, even seeking to
intimidate through thinly veiled threats of violence, all
because the left did not get what they want.
We have a video and I would ask that we play the video now,
please.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Comer. In today's hearing, Democrats will fearmonger,
following the advice of their allies in the media and jumping
on the bandwagon. The New York Times posts a piece saying that
Democrats, ``need to learn lean into the air and the politics
of fear,'' when it comes to abortion. To the mainstream media,
the politics of fear includes ignoring violence against those
who oppose their preferred policies. Just a few weeks ago, a
man traveled across the country to try to assassinate a sitting
Supreme Court Justice. The mainstream media buried the news
because doing so would somehow show their support for Justice
Kavanaugh or even the Supreme Court.
Today's hearing continues the pattern set by Democrats
throughout this entire Congress. In hearing after hearing, they
have sought to draw attention away from the failures of the
Biden administration, failures that have led to skyrocketing
inflation, record high gas prices, a frightening shortage of
baby formula, and the worst border crisis in the history of
America. While Democrats refuse to conduct any meaningful
oversight, President Biden has put us on a path to destroy
America. Unfortunately, Democrats are following suit by seeking
to destroy our democratic institutions. They are beholden to
the radical left, who even the Biden administration admits is
out of touch. They have no respect for process even though our
republic relies on process to survive.
When process is respected, it strengthens our institutions
and encourages responsible civic action through the legislative
process. When the process is respected, the rule of law is
upheld. And thankfully, the Supreme Court respected process.
The Constitution begins with, ``We the People of the United
States,'' not ``We the government'' or ``We the nine Justices
of the Supreme Court.'' And to see the Supreme Court restrain
its own powers and return authority to the states and the
people should be inspiring. Meanwhile, the American people
entrusted Congress to restrain the powers of the executive
branch, and toward that end, the Congress and our committee has
failed. As our country struggles under the weight of inflation,
skyrocketing energy crisis, and a broken southern border, we
have sat idly by holding hearings that offer the American
people zero solutions. This committee needs to do better. We
must do better. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Before I introduce our witnesses, I
would like to briefly respond to the ranking member. Democrats
strongly reject any use of harassment, threats, or violence.
That's why Congress has taken action to protect members of the
Supreme Court. That's why we have urged Republicans to join us
in condemning the violent attack on the Capitol last year. What
we do support is Americans' ability to peacefully stand up for
their rights. I believe there is no democracy if women cannot
make decisions about their own healthcare, including
reproductive rights. And we will continue to fight for
Americans and their rights, and we will never give up.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses that we have
today. First, we will hear from Fatima Goss Graves, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the National Women's Law Center.
I now recognize Representative Lawrence to briefly introduce
our next witness.
Mrs. Lawrence. Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair. I
have the pleasure of introducing our own Michigan-owned State
Senator Mallory McMorrow. She represents Metro Detroit. She is
serving her first term in the Michigan Senate for the 13th
State Senate District. She is an impassioned fighter for the
people of Michigan, for families, and for reproductive health.
Her voice speaks volumes, and I look forward to hearing from
her today.
Chairwoman Maloney. I now recognize Representative Johnson
briefly to introduce our next witness. Representative Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. This morning, I am
pleased to introduce state Representative Renitta Shannon, who
is a representative in the Georgia House of Representatives
since 2017, where she has represented the 84th District, which
includes part of the 4th congressional District, which I
represent. Representative Shannon is the former Executive Vice
President of the Georgia State Chapter of the National
Organization for Women, and has long been a champion in the
fight for economic justice, racial and gender equality, and
reproductive freedom. She has sponsored legislation aiming to
defend anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. She has
successfully led the effort to expand postpartum Medicaid
coverage from 6 to 12 months, and has fought repeatedly against
restrictions to abortions in Georgia, sharing her own abortion
story in the process.
In light of the recent Supreme Court decision, we need
people to speak out about what we all know is right. And, State
Representative Shannon, we welcome you to Congress to use your
voice once again and hold those who strive to take away bodily
autonomy accountable. Thank you for your testimony today, and I
yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Then we will hear from Professor
Michele Goodwin, the Chancellor's Professor of Law at the
University of California, Irvine. Please note that Professor
Goodwin has a hard stop at 11, at which time she will be
excused. Then we will hear from Erin Morrow Hawley, Senior
Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom. Finally, we will
hear from Sarah Lopez, abortion storyteller at We Testify and
Youth Program Manager at Jane's Due Process.
The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in.
Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony 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.
Without objection your written statements will be made part
of this record.
With that, Ms. Graves, you are now recognized for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF FATIMA GOSS GRAVES, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL
WOMEN'S LAW CENTER
Ms. Goss Graves. Chairman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer,
and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to
testify today. My name is Fatima Goss Graves, and I am
President and CEO at the National Women's Law Center, and I am
here today because in a single day, millions lost a right and a
right they had for nearly 50 years that had been fundamental to
our health, and our life, and our future, and to this society.
The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health
Organization has already proven to be catastrophic. Within two
weeks, 14 states were already without abortion care, now more.
And people are now told they will be forced to stay pregnant,
they will be forced to give birth, and they even are now being
told they cannot leave their state. And we got here in a
dizzying fashion. A mix of extreme lawmakers raced to pass more
and more outrageous laws banning abortion, sowing fear and
division in their communities along the way. And then they
escalated those tactics after they saw President Trump's
promise that he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who
would automatically ban abortion and overturn Roe.
And so more than two weeks ago, we watched with horror as
the court's majority put their personal opinions above
longstanding rule of law, science, and people's basic needs. I
cannot overstate how much legal uncertainty and chaos that this
Supreme Court has unleashed with this unsound opinion. Our
laws, and our systems, and our expectations in this country
have been built around the idea that abortion is legal. And now
without that bedrock, we face a mine full of vague, and
evolving, and even sometimes conflicting state laws.
Employers, and schools, and city governments, they are all
buried under the weight of this explosion. Clinics and
healthcare professionals, they are trying to make sense of this
shifting landscape. Patients are confused, and they are scared
about the rights and they as individuals are forced to navigate
in an uncertain legal landscape. Many cannot travel, including
those who can't afford it, or are incarcerated, or may be
undocumented. And those who are able to travel out of state,
they are terrified. State lawmakers in Missouri are already
considering a bounty-hunter-style law to target those who
travel out of state for abortion care and those who help them.
And all of these groups are facing fear of prosecution, and
harassment, and intimidation.
And so, to the committee members and to anyone who is
watching today, I am going to say this is not a drill. Our very
democracy and what it means to be an equal participant in our
society, in our economy, in our political system, it is on the
brink of demise. And alongside it, things like free and fair
elections, interstate travel, freedom to express oneself,
safety in public places, the right to protest and indeed, yes,
that fundamental right to privacy, these are principles of our
democracy, and they are significantly under threat.
So before closing, I just want to focus not on those who
unleashed this chaos, but on those who will be most harmed by
it. Those who are suffering now are more likely to be low
income. They are more likely to be women of color. They are
already facing challenges accessing healthcare in their
community, including other basic forms of healthcare, like
contraception. They often lack things like job security and
paid leave, and they may just be going to college or starting a
new career, or maybe they are trying to leave an abusive
relationship, or they could have been assaulted. Whatever their
situation, they understand why they need abortion care, and
they know what is right for them, and I trust them to make that
decision.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Senator McMorrow, you are
now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MALLORY MCMORROW, MICHIGAN STATE
SENATOR
Ms. McMorrow. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, and
members of the committee, and Congresswoman Lawrence for the
very kind introduction.
I would like to start with a story. In 2014, Michal and
Jordan Nodel were a year into their marriage and elated to be
expecting their first child. Throughout their pregnancy, Michal
felt wonderful, as healthy as could be. All of their regular
checkups showed that everything was on track, but at their 20-
week appointment, everything changed. The doctor came back into
the room, and the room group grew quiet. The diagnosis was
severe osteogenesis imperfecta, a form of skeletal dysplasia
preventing the fetus from developing collagen. Simply put, the
bones were not developing. Michal and Jordan learned that if
their future child survived, being carried to term, they would
likely live a very short life, suffering every moment in great
pain. The diagnosis was so severe that a sneeze could break a
rib.
Her husband, Jordan, told me that he didn't think they were
in the category of needing an abortion and all of the stigma
that went along with it. ``We needed emergency medical care.''
He said that given their situation, he had no doubt that the
system would recognize the urgency and get them the care that
they needed, but he was wrong. The hospital made it difficult
to schedule appointments. No one seemed to want to call back,
despite making the heartbreaking and selfless decision to
terminate their pregnancy, a pregnancy they wanted so badly. In
the moment when they needed help the most, it felt like nobody
would help them. Through tireless effort, calling every family
friend they could think of, they finally found their way to the
University of Michigan Women's Hospital where a team of experts
would perform the procedure.
Michal and Jordan recognized that most don't have the time
and resources that they do and how lucky they were to know
people in medicine throughout the state and be able to take
time off of work. Michal's abortion took place in November. The
following August she was pregnant. Zoe is now five, and Lior,
their second daughter, was born 18 months later. Michal and
Jordan shared their story with me, a story not dissimilar to
many other women and families facing this decision, because
without access to the care that they needed, she would not have
the wonderful family and two healthy daughters she has now.
Without that abortion, Michal may never have been able to
conceive again.
I previously spoke one-on-one with one of my colleagues who
was in favor of legislation further restricting abortion in our
state. She listened to their story and asked me how frequently
a situation like theirs happens. She said to me, ``This feels
so difficult to legislate because every situation is
different.'' Honorable Members of Congress, that response is
exactly right. Every situation is different. Every individual
and family seeking abortion care does so for different reasons.
Sometimes birth control fails. Sometimes a family already has
children and knows that they cannot support anymore. For so
many others, getting pregnant is hard and staying pregnant,
safely and healthily, is even harder.
And with the Dobbs ruling overturning the protections
previously enshrined in Roe v. Wade, Michigan now has a long
dormant 1931 law on our books that makes providing abortion a
felony, with no exception for age, rape, or incest. The way the
language is written, our attorney general has warned that the
law could be interpreted to include a self-managed medication
abortion, meaning that not only would doctors and medical
professionals be sent to jail, but so, too, would countless
women and girls.
I had women reach out to me afraid of even trying to get
pregnant, knowing they are at higher risk of a complicated
pregnancy, and devastated to think of what might happen if it
doesn't go exactly right. I have constituents who tried one
round of IVF, so deeply wanting to start a family, but not
knowing if IVF will still be legal in a post-Roe reality,
terrified that they will never be able to. I have a constituent
who shared with me that she has already survived an ectopic
pregnancy because she had access to an abortion, and she asked
me what if it happens again.
At this moment, abortion is still legal in Michigan because
of a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of the
1931 law. But some of our own colleagues are seeking to
intervene and overturn the injunction, forcing the 1931 law
into effect. Every situation is different and make no mistake:
the impacts on the ground in Michigan are already and will
continue to be devastating.
I thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee for
allowing me to testify here today, and I implore you to
consider the great harm that this Supreme Court ruling will
have throughout more than half of states nationwide, and to do
the necessary work to ensure that every individual has access
to safe, necessary medical care that they and their doctors
determine that they need.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Now, Representative Shannon,
you are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RENITTA SHANNON, MEMBER, GEORGIA
STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ms. Shannon. Thank you, Honorable Chair Maloney, for
inviting me to address your committee today on behalf of
Georgians.
Twenty years ago, I had an abortion and faced significant
unnecessary burdens in trying to do so. Sadly, over the last 20
years, barriers to accessing abortion care have only increased,
exacerbating an ongoing public health crisis defined by more
maternal deaths, increasing poverty, and greater inequality
overall. The Dobbs decision will amount to structural violence
for many communities, but most egregiously for Black, brown,
indigenous people of color, and people with disabilities,
LGBTQ+ people, and people living at the intersection of these
identities, who have already sustained centuries of oppression
and lack of access to reproductive freedom.
Since the inception of America, Black women have been
battling for our bodily autonomy, resisting rape, forced birth
during enslavement, and involuntary sterilization into the late
1970's. Today, accessing abortion in Georgia depends on whether
or not you have the resources to overcome economic,
institutional, and legal barriers restricting access to care.
Per the National Partnership for Women and Families
organization, Georgia has over 2.5 million women of
reproductive age, and almost half of them are economically
insecure.
Having a child has implications for one's education,
earnings, and economic security, and is an essential aspect of
planning for one's future. Each of us is an expert in our
unique life situations. Once a person decides whether or not to
carry a pregnancy, regardless of the reason, no one should
stand in the way of their decision. They should have access to
quality healthcare with dignity and free from government
interference or judgment.
As a lawmaker in Georgia, I have witnessed that many
barriers exist to accessing reproductive healthcare, and this
is true whether you are trying to carry a healthy pregnancy or
access abortion. To be clear, while being known internationally
to many as being resource rich, the Atlanta Metro Area does not
reflect the majority of Georgia, which is rural and lacks
access to many of the resources Atlanta has. Over half of
Georgia's 159 counties do not have access to an OBGYN. Georgia
continues to rank highest in maternal mortality, with Black
women being 3 to 4 times more likely to die than their white
counterparts.
Forcing a person to carry an unwanted or medically
dangerous pregnancy increases the chance of death of the
pregnant person, increases future infertility, and leads to
poor health outcomes unnecessarily. To put it bluntly, abortion
is healthcare as it is commonly necessary used to resolve
miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and dangerous health
conditions. But there are many areas of the state where
pregnant people must travel hours to receive any of this
emergency care, thereby increasing the chance of maternal
death. This presents more barriers to accessing care as
Georgia's infrastructure, in terms of transportation and
broadband internet, is sorely lacking for today's needs.
Georgia does not have a robust transit system. It is still
the case in most of Georgia that if you don't have access to a
car, you will not be able to access care of any kind. Our lack
of broadband infrastructure in rural parts of the state make it
hard for many Georgians to identify providers or attend
telemedicine appointments. Increasing barriers to affording
care, Georgia has some of the lowest legal wages in the
country. Georgia's state minimum wage is effectively a racist
carveout, allowing agricultural and domestic workers to be
legally paid $5.25 per hour. These two industries almost
exclusively employ Black and brown workers. Many Georgians find
affording basic needs to be very much out of reach.
To be clear, these challenges in Georgia are solvable, but
they are the result of years of conservative-led government
equaling a lack of investments in Georgians. That has led to a
harsh reality for many. Poor leadership persists because of
rampant voter suppression, targeting Georgians who are already
struggling the most. All of these factors have made accessing
abortion and reproductive healthcare challenging to obtain for
many.
Georgia has less than 10 clinics statewide performing
abortions. Most of the work is being done by independent
clinics with limited staff and financial resources, not well-
funded large corporations like Planned Parenthood. After Texas
implemented Senate Bill 8, abortion providers across the region
say they are struggling to accommodate the surge of out-of-
state patients, as Texas is the Nation's second most populous
state. Since the Dobbs decision, some clinics have decided to
close, anticipating that House Bill 481 could go into effect
any day now and outlaw abortion in Georgia. If abortion is
outlawed in Georgia, many will not have the resources to get
care out of state. The ability to access reproductive
healthcare should not be determined by the state a person lives
in. Having a patchwork of reproductive freedom across the
country is detrimental to individuals and families.
Since the Dobbs decision, providers in Georgia tell me that
they have seen two patterns emerge. First, they have been
overwhelmed with calls from out-of-state patients as state by
states rush to ban abortion. A provider in Alabama referred 100
patients in one phone call to the Atlanta-based provider I
spoke with. The second pattern is that the patients are
terminating earlier and earlier in pregnancy, feeling pressure
to be decisive before losing access to abortion altogether.
The latest decision in Dobbs has only exasperated a dire
lack of access to care. Abortion rights should have never been
left up to the courts. We must immediately codify complete
reproductive freedom in law and ensure that everyone can thrive
with dignity. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you.
Professor Goodwin, you are now recognized. Professor
Goodwin?
STATEMENT OF MICHELE BRATCHER GOODWIN, CHANCELLOR'S PROFESSOR
OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE
Ms. Goodwin. Committee Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member
Comer, and distinguished members of the House Committee on
Oversight and Reform, thank you for inviting me to participate
in today's hearing on ``The Impact of the Supreme Court's Dobbs
Decision on Abortion Rights and Access Across the United
States.''
I join you and fellow witnesses today to explain the dire
consequences of the current reproductive landscape in the
United States in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
Dobbs. And that includes the horrifically high rates of
maternal mortality and morbidity, chilling racial disparities
and rates of death associated with pregnancy, the grave
incidence of punishment against girls and women in anti-
abortion states, and the importance of centering the Thirteenth
and Fourteenth Amendment as pathways forward.
My name is Michele Goodwin. I am a Chancellor's Professor
at the University of California, Irvine, and a Senior Lecturer
at Harvard Medical School. My comments today will focus on the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment, and my written comments,
which have been shared, go into greater details across all of
these areas.
Ending the forced sexual and reproductive servitude of
Black girls and women was a critical part of the passage of the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. If cotton was
euphemistically king, then Black women's wealth maximizing
forced reproduction was Queen. The overturning of Roe v. Wade
reveals the Supreme Court's neglectful reading of the
amendments that abolished slavery and guaranteed all people
equal protection under the law. It means the erasure of Black
women from the Constitution.
Mandated, forced, or compulsory pregnancy actually
contravene enumerated rights in the Constitution, namely the
Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against involuntary
servitude and protection of bodily autonomy, as well as the
Fourteenth Amendment's defense of privacy and freedom. This
Supreme Court demonstrates selective and opportunistic
interpretation of the Constitution and legal history, which
ignores the intent of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments,
especially as related to Black women's bodily autonomy,
liberty, and privacy, which extended beyond freeing them from
labor in cotton fields, to shielding them from rape and forced
reproduction. The horrors inflicted on Black women during
slavery, especially sexual violations and forced pregnancies,
have been all but wiped from cultural and legal memory. But
they do matter, especially as Justice Alito and those in the
majority made specific overtures to originalism and textualism.
Overturning the right to an abortion reveals the Court's
indefensible disregard for the lives of pregnant patients,
given the possible side effects and consequences of pregnancy,
from gestational diabetes to ectopic pregnancies and death.
State-mandated pregnancy will exacerbate what are already
alarming health and dignity harms, especially in states with
horrific records of maternal mortality and morbidity. In many
of these states, there have been uninterrupted patterns of
invidious lawmaking and discrimination that harm the interests
of Black women and children, only countered by necessary
Federal enactments, review, and protection.
To understand the gravity of what is at stake, one needs
only to look at the Supreme Court's own recent history. In
2016, the Supreme Court noted in Whole Woman's Health v.
Hellerstedt that women are 14 times more likely to die by
carrying a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion. The
United States bears the chilling distinction of being the most
dangerous place in the industrialized world to give birth,
ranking 56th overall in the world. Disproportionately, those
who will suffer most are poor women, especially Black and brown
women. Black women are over three times as likely to die by
carrying a pregnancy to term than their white counterparts, and
in Mississippi, a Black woman is 118 times more likely to die
by carrying a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion. And
I will repeat that: a Black woman in Mississippi is 118 times
more likely to die by carrying a pregnancy to term than by
having an abortion in that state. According to the Mississippi
maternal mortality report, Black women accounted for nearly 80
percent of pregnancy-related cardiac deaths in that state.
When we consider the risks that are at hand, and many of
them have been talked about--criminal punishment, civil
punishment, the erosion of privacy protections, which Justice
Thomas calls for in his concurring opinion--one cannot trust
that when the Supreme Court says that there are guardrails that
will protect individual's right to contraception, marriage, and
more, that that will be respected or protected.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
Thank you so very much.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. And, Ms. Hawley, you are now
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ERIN MORROW HAWLEY, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM,
THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY
Ms. Hawley. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking
Member Comer, and members of the committee. I am Erin Hawley,
senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom.
The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs corrects a 50-year
wrong, one that resulted in the death of over 60 million unborn
children. Roe v. Wade was premised on egregious legal errors,
and its reversal is a tremendous victory for life and for the
American people. Roe cheated us of our ability to promote good
policy, but Dobbs restores our opportunity to reaffirm
motherhood, and, in so doing, to empower women.
Roe was terrible constitutional law. It invented,
fabricated really, a constitutional right from thin air, and
scholars across the political spectrum believed the case was
wrongly decided. Roe took from the American people the ability
to protect unborn life in an exercise of raw judicial power. As
a result of Roe, the United States has been an extreme outlier
in abortion law, being one of only a few countries, countries
like China and North Korea, to allow elective abortion for any
reason up until the moment before birth. Tragically, Roe was as
wrong about women as it was about the Constitution. Its seven
male authors lamented that motherhood ``forced upon women a
bleak and distressful future,'' but moms across the country
know that's an inadequate description of what we do and who we
are. With Dobbs, Americans can begin to undo the damage of that
devastating lie.
On behalf of Alliance Defending Freedom, I had the
privilege of serving as counsel to Mississippi and Dobbs. My
daughter was about six months old when I was asked to help, and
it's not easy traveling with a baby, but my job allowed me to
take her along, encouraged it really, something we should see
far more of today. Abigail was a tiny, but tangible reminder of
why Dobbs matters, because every life is unique and valuable.
While being a parent is hard and immensely more difficult for
single parents without community support. Moms across the
country attest that it is worth it, and for women who are
reluctant to parent, there is also hope. At any given time, 1
million families are enthusiastically waiting to adopt. There
is no such thing as an unwanted child.
In another lie to the American people, Roe told women that
their baby is merely potential life. The scientific evidence
establishes that life begins at conception. At just six weeks,
unborn babies' hearts begin to beat. At eight weeks, they have
fingers and toes, and at 10 weeks, their unique fingerprints
form. Yet without a hint of irony, pro-abortion activists posit
that the reversal of Roe treats women as objects as less than
full human beings. However, it is abortion that treats babies,
including female babies, as mere objects, even while science
establishes that they are fully alive and fully human, no
matter how tiny they are.
The truth is that Roe was not the pro-woman opinion that
some imagine. In a patriarchal passage that the pro-abortion
left would rather forget, Roe gave to a woman's doctor the
ability to choose an abortion. As the late Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg explained, Roe was ``physician-centered, focused on a
doctor's freedom to practice his profession as he thinks
best.'' She said the picture that I got from Roe was ``tall
doctor and little woman needing his advice and care.''
Abortion is a horribly inadequate solution to the very real
problems that many women face. It often results in greater risk
of death and illness. Many women are unsure of their decision,
and a majority go on to suffer emotional and mental harm.
Additionally, surveys show that women who choose abortion
report that they would have chosen life if they had more
support. Many companies today are eager to offer to pay for
women to end their pregnancies, but how many of them are
offering to pay for diapers, or childcare, or for flexible work
options?
Dobbs give women a voice and a vote. It returns the
profoundly moral question to the people. It presents an
opportunity for America to restore a culture that values
families, mothers, and women. Thankfully, we are already seeing
state and private entities, like the embattled pregnancy care
centers, step up to surround expecting moms with a caring
community and provide families with those diapers, car seats,
clothing, housing, educational opportunities, job training, any
medical, emotional, and post-abortive care.
It has been three weeks since Dobbs. We still have
questions. But one thing we know, a post-Roe America is a
hopeful one. It's an America where we can recognize the
inherent dignity and worth of every life and empower women by
providing them with the resources they need to flourish through
pregnancy and beyond. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Ms. Lopez, you are now
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SARAH LOPEZ, ABORTION STORYTELLER, WE TESTIFY, AND
YOUTH PROGRAM MANAGER, JANE'S DUE PROCESS
Ms. Lopez. Good morning, members of the committee. My name
is Sarah Lopez. I am a Texan, a We Testify abortion
storyteller, and the Youth Program Manager at Jane's Due
Process where we help young people in Texas navigate parental
consent laws and confidentially access abortion and birth
control.
When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, removing the
constitutional right to abortion, clinics, abortion funds, and
advocates weren't surprised, but it didn't make the news any
less heart-wrenching. Countless clinics had to tell patients in
the waiting room that they could no longer help them. Abortion
funds, like Jane's Due Process, have paused services and are
unsure of what, if any, support we can offer, but we are still
doing everything we can in accordance with the law to help
young people. This didn't happen overnight. Texas lawmakers
chipped away at our rights against the outcry and will of the
people at each legislative session. Even before the Dobbs
ruling, in Texas, Senate Bill 8 banned abortion past six weeks,
forcing Texans either to leave the state to get an abortion or
remain pregnant against their will.
Texas and other states that have banned abortion are ill-
equipped to care for families. Crisis pregnancy centers, which
are unlicensed, fake clinics, designed to trick people out of
having abortions, outnumber abortion clinics 3 to 1. In Texas,
they receive $50 million a year, diverting money from the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program meant to help
vulnerable families afford food, rent, and childcare. This
funding is badly needed for Texas families but gets wasted on
misinformation and lies. I know because I have seen it in
action in many of the people that I have supported.
I had an abortion almost six years ago as I graduated
college. I was working in a restaurant, scraping by on $2.15 an
hour plus tips. It was so little that I could barely afford my
$250 a month rent. When I found out I was pregnant, I knew
immediately that I wanted an abortion, but the stigma around
abortion made me feel like what was happening to me was beyond
my control and yet also somehow my fault. As long as I can
remember, Texas has had dozens of restrictions making accessing
abortion care much more complex and difficult than it should
be. The government mandated 24-hour delay turned into a two-
week delay when combined with holiday office closures. As a
sexual assault survivor, the transvaginal ultrasound that I had
to receive was torture.
All of this was medically unnecessary and enacted in hopes
that I would give up my efforts to receive an abortion.
However, after my abortion, I felt immediate relief. I also
know how lucky I was. The independent clinic I went to, Austin
Women's Health Center, was nearby, and the nurse held my hand
during my procedure to make sure that I was comfortable. My
boyfriend, who I am still with, drove me to my appointments and
paid for my abortion. My best friend, Grace, held me in her
arms and reassured me that I didn't do anything wrong.
Later, I learned that there is an ecosystem of fierce
advocates at abortion funds who do everything they can to make
sure that people are still able to have a dignified and
supportive experience despite the many obstacles they face. We
have helped countless people who didn't have a support system,
reliable childcare, or any method of transportation. Being
forced to leave the state or city or state you live in takes an
emotional toll on people. Without basic necessities, like
reliable phone, or internet access, a photo ID, or a bank
account, it can feel impossible. But clinics, abortion funds,
and practical support organizations are the networks of support
which move mountains to ensure that people can still get the
care that they need.
I never would have dreamed that I would be able to tell
people about my abortion, let alone sit before you here today
and talk about it. To some extent, I wish I didn't have to talk
about something so personal in this setting. But I hope that by
being here today, people who currently need abortions know that
they are not alone. We deserve better. This is about our right
to self-determination. It is about centering pleasure and our
struggle for collective liberation and reproductive justice. It
is about not leaving people behind. It is about fighting back
against the surveillance and subsequent criminalization of
pregnancy outcomes. Everyone should have access to the full
range of reproductive healthcare, and that includes abortion.
As I close, I want to be clear. This ruling is yet another
attempt by lawmakers to eradicate our autonomy and sense of
self. But what these same lawmakers don't understand is that no
one, no matter how much power you hold, will ever be able to
dissolve our community bonds, our capacity to maintain hope
amidst so much despair, and our unrelenting love for our
people. As we say at We Testify, everyone loves someone who has
had abortions, and as you reflect on my testimony, I hope you
think about those whom you love.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my story with you
here today.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, I thank you. I thank all of the
panelists. We tried to get abortion providers to come in and
tell their stories, some of whom have experienced violence, but
they were afraid to come in.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
For years, right-wing lawmakers across the country have
been pushing so-called trigger bans that are designed to ban
abortion immediately if Roe fell. Now that the Supreme Court
has thrown out the constitutional right to abortion, 16 states
have banned or nearly banned abortions, and many more will
follow. And we have a map here that shows where abortion is
banned, will soon be banned, or is being seriously considered,
almost half of the states. These bans are stripping away the
rights for millions of Americans across our country.
Representative Shannon, I understand that any day now,
Georgia may implement a six-week ban on abortion. What would
the impact be on the people you represent?
Ms. Shannon. Thank you, Madam Chair for the question. As I
mentioned in my testimony, yes, most of Georgia does not have
the resources that the Atlanta Metro area has, and Georgia
ranks high consistently for maternal mortality deaths. And so,
if abortion were outlawed, simply put, we will be outlawing
access to care, which is something that would only exacerbate
maternal mortality, so this would be a tremendous issue for the
majority of the state. I have mentioned before how low our
wages are in the state and in many places have really become
unaffordable. And so, this would be a tremendous burden and
would amount to structural violence for many communities around
the state.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Michigan has a law on the
books from nearly a century ago that would ban abortion
immediately. This law has been put on hold by a Michigan court
while it is litigated. Senator McMorrow, what does this
uncertainty mean to the people in Michigan who need abortions
and reproductive healthcare right now, and what are you worried
about for the future?
Ms. McMorrow. Madam Chair, the implications are
devastating. So, as you mentioned, this law was written nearly
a century ago, but the original version was written in 1847,
and it provides no exception for rape or incest or age. It is
vague enough to potentially include medication abortion and
even contraception. It is dire. Right now, there is a
preliminary injunction, meaning that abortion is still legal,
but our Republican colleagues are spending almost a million
dollars of taxpayer dollars to challenge that injunction, to
force the 1931 law into effect immediately, arguing that such
legislation should be decided in the legislature when, in fact,
my Democratic colleagues and I had not only introduced bills to
repeal the 1931 law, but to replace it with the Reproductive
Health Act, which would codify abortion access and reproductive
rights, and the legislature refuses to take those bills up.
Michigan is currently one of the most gerrymandered states
in the country. It is quite literally minority rule at the
moment. And you need to look no further than an effort led by
citizens here to forward a petition initiative to amend our
state constitution, an initiative that requires 425,000
signatures to get on the November ballot. The organization, led
by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and Michigan Voices, which is
a coalition of women of color, collected more than 800,000
signatures. That is about 1 in 10 registered voters in the
state of Michigan physically found a petition, signed it to get
it on the ballot. They have turned in the highest number of
petition signatures of any petition initiative in state
history. The people are speaking. They are speaking very loudly
because they know how devastating this 1931 law will be if and
when it goes into effect.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Professor Goodwin, we know
that Black women face dramatically higher rates of maternal
mortality than white women. In my own city, it is even higher
than the national average, unfortunately, and it is
unacceptable that despite having the highest maternal mortality
rate among our peer countries, we are now forcing people to
remain pregnant against their will. What does the Dobbs
decision mean for those who will be forced to remain pregnant,
and particularly for Black women to be forced against their
will to remain pregnant?
Ms. Goodwin. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for that
question. This is no hyperbole but to say that it is
essentially a death sentence, given the data that we already
know, given what the Supreme Court already knows and has
expressed in 2016 that a woman is 14 times more likely to die
by carrying a pregnancy to term than having an abortion. That
statistic only magnifies in the states like Mississippi, Texas,
Louisiana, the deadliest places in all of the industrialized
world to be pregnant.
This is also data that comes from those very states, their
departments of health. So, it is not information that is made
up from some left-wing radical organization. This is data that
is produced in those very red states that show these alarming
rates of death. And essentially, it is a death sentence for
those women and also the girls affected. It means we have free
states and non-free states like we did during the American
period of slavery.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The Supreme Court's decision
to overturn Roe v. Wade takes us backward. It is dangerous, as
we just heard, and flat wrong. Democrats are dedicated and
determined to do everything we can to reverse this, and I now
yield back.
As previously stated at the beginning of the hearing,
Professor Goodwin has a hard stop at 11. Professor Goodwin,
thank you very much for joining us today for your testimony,
and you are excused. Thank you.
Ms. Goodwin. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlewoman from North Carolina,
Ms. Foxx is recognized.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question will be
for Ms. Hawley. Ms. Hawley, I just heard them talk about that
it would be a death sentence for the mother taking the life of
the baby. And I find that really interesting that we are
talking about a hypothetical situation of taking the life of
the mother when they are actually taking the life of a baby. We
are living in a brave new world right now. It is unbelievable.
Ms. Hawley, following the Supreme Court's historic decision
on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case,
Democrat strategists and so-called pundits within the
mainstream media went into a manic frenzy. Every negative
characterization in the book was thrown at the Supreme Court,
its conservative justices, Republicans, and the entire pro-life
movement. Headlines foretold of the apocalypse and how our
democracy was hanging on by a mere thread, though we live, in
fact, in a constitutional republic.
The entire country was swept up by the media's maelstrom of
political skullduggery. It was intended to deceive the American
people, and, more importantly, distract them from the truth.
The truth is that the decision in Dobbs simply rights a wrong
that has lasted for almost half a century. Decision-making is
returned to the states where it belongs and where it should
have been the entire time. federalism is finally receiving the
due deference that it deserves.
Ms. Hawley, in recent years, pro-choice advocates have
shifted their agenda by stating that abortion is a necessary
component of healthcare, which is what we just heard. Would you
consider taking the life of an unborn baby healthcare?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely not. Abortion is not healthcare.
And, in fact, if we look at the statistics from women who have
had abortions themselves, 75 percent of those women say they
would have chosen life if circumstances would have been
different. Abortion is not healthcare.
Ms. Foxx. So, in your opinion, is the Dobbs ruling an
attack on women's rights, and did women ever have a
constitutional right to take the life of their unborn baby?
Ms. Hawley. The Supreme Court opinion, Dobbs, cogently
explained that there is nothing in the Constitution's text, or
structure, or in our Nation's history that would in any sense
support a right to an abortion. If you look at our Nation's
history, abortion had been unlawful since the common law. In
1973, when Roe vs. Wade was decided, that case overturned the
pro-life laws of nearly every single state.
Ms. Foxx. Would you talk a little bit about the pro-life
movement being a pro-woman movement?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. As we mentioned, of course, babies
can be female as well, so it is definitely pro-woman in that
sense. As well, the pro-life movement and ADF believes in the
inherent dignity and value of every single person. We believe
that every person has the right to life and that the pro-life
community has and will continue to come alongside and empower
women. If we talk about pregnancy care centers, they are not
fake centers. In 2019, they served 1.85 million families,
provided $266 million worth of goods of car seats, of baby
formula, which is surprisingly hard to get, diapers, of the
things that women really need. They also provide emotional
counseling. They provide fatherhood training, housing,
educational training, things that can enable women to survive
and thrive.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. As I said before this committee last
September, we must pay attention to the languages being used to
justify the destruction of human life. Abortion is the
deliberate termination of human pregnancy and the destruction
of an unborn baby. The term has been tossed around the public
square so much over the course of decades, that the magnitude
of this horrendous act itself has become lost. It is a
euphemism designed to deceive with the goal of dehumanizing the
unborn before its life is extinguished.
Allow me to deconstruct and accurately define the
euphemism, the life, the left has switched to using as of late:
``women's health:'' the destruction of innocent unborn babies;
``reproductive freedom:'' the ability to murder a child out of
convenience; ``abortion rights:'' the agency to rob another of
life; ``pro-choice:'' anti-life.
Day by day the pro-life movement in America continues to
grow, but our fight is not over. If we are to close this
shameful chapter of murdering the unborn and consign it to the
ash heap of history, we need to clear the left's linguistic
smokescreen from the equation entirely. The facts are on our
side, and it is up to us to correct the record once and for
all. We are the ones who will ensure that life always wins.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton,
is now recognized.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this important
hearing. Without the protections of statehood, the people who I
represent, D.C. residents, are uniquely threatened by the
Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade because of
the Congress's undemocratic control over the nearly 700,000
D.C. residents. Since 1988, with few exceptions, Congress has
used its control of D.C.'s budget to prevent D.C. from using
its local funds to cover abortion care for D.C. residents
enrolled in Medicaid. When combined with the Hyde Amendment,
which prohibits Federal Medicaid funds from being used for
abortion care, there is no possibility for D.C. residents
enrolled in Medicaid to use that coverage for abortion care. In
2019, more than 20 percent of adults in the District were
enrolled in Medicaid. Ms. Goss Graves, what impact does it have
on people with less income when abortion care is not covered by
Medicaid?
Ms. Goss Graves. You know, Roe v. Wade was always the
floor. And for people who have low income who have Medicaid or
other Federal health insurance, what it has meant is that
access to abortion is not meaningful. And what we are seeing
around the country right now, as additional hurdles are in
place and people have to travel or seek care out of their
community, we are now seeing that terrible situation where
people couldn't access care, who have low incomes, dramatically
extended. And the additional difference now are the painful
criminal penalties that are falling on top of it. So, D.C.
residents already know some of this, and we also know it is
going to get worse.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Republicans have long expressed an
interest in overturning the will of D.C. residents to ban
access to abortion in D.C.. They previously tried to ban access
to abortion after 20 weeks, and I was able to nullify or to
overcome that. And they could try to ban access to all abortion
were they to take control of Congress. Governor Youngkin in
Virginia has also pledged to try and restrict abortion access
in Virginia, so what we have is providers in D.C., Maryland,
and Virginia. These are the states that are aligned together to
serve patients from as far away as Texas, Florida, and Georgia.
Representative Shannon, what would it mean for patients
from Southern states if abortion becomes illegal in both D.C.
and Virginia?
Ms. Shannon. Well, as I mentioned before, and I want to
correct the record on a few things, abortion absolutely is
healthcare. When you have a miscarriage or an ectopic
pregnancy, a lot of times abortion is the way that these things
are resolved. And so, this is the reason that you see across
the world, countries that have more restrictions on
reproductive freedom and countries that outlaw abortion, they
have higher maternal mortality rates. And statistically, you
also see that when folks are allowed to exercise their
reproductive freedom, they are able to bring down maternal
mortality rates in areas. And so, that completely makes the
case about whether or not abortion is healthcare.
So again, any attempts to outlaw abortion, no matter if you
are talking about D.C., Georgia, Texas, or any place, is going
to create an issue like what we currently have going on in
Georgia, where Georgia is serving as almost like an abortion
hub, where folks are coming from other areas getting abortions
in Georgia. And that creates a lot of issues for clinics who
cannot accommodate the demand, and it really just puts care out
of reach for many. And it boils down to then the only people
who can actually get the healthcare that they seek are people
who have resources. What is important to realize in all of this
is that when a person has made a decision about whether or not
to keep a pregnancy, they should be able to get access to care
with dignity and without judgment or government interference.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Hice, is now recognized.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am an ardent supporter
of our Constitution and the inalienable rights that are
guaranteed therein, and specifically, first and foremost among
those are the right to life, without which none of the others
matter, quite frankly. And for that reason, I have been in this
battle for a long, long time. I am extremely pleased with the
decision of the Supreme Court and applaud the justices for
undoing the irreparable harm done both to women and over 60
million unborn babies over the past 50 years.
Let's get to the question of personhood. I believe a lot of
the battle, the issue comes down to this question here. Am I
correct in assuming that our witnesses, with the exception of
Ms. Hawley, would more or less say that it is your belief that
unborn babies do not have certain rights, such as the right to
life? Is that generally accepted? You believe unborn babies do
have the right to life?
Ms. Shannon. What I believe is that viability is different
for every pregnancy. No two pregnancies are the same. And so,
you can't just say across the board at what point any pregnancy
would be viable.
Mr. Hice. OK. Well, the question is, I didn't ask about
viability. It is about personhood. Let me ask Ms. Hawley, at
what point does a baby become a person? That is the question
here.
Ms. Hawley. Sorry about that. I believe that life begins at
conception, and scientific fact establishes that. We are no
longer living in 1973. If you look at an ultrasound from that
time period, you really can't see a whole lot. If you look at
an ultrasound today, take 15 weeks, which is well before
viability, the point in time when the Mississippi's Gestational
Age Act applied, you can clearly see your baby move and
stretch. She can hiccup. She can quite likely feel pain. There
is no question that that baby is both fully alive and fully
human.
Mr. Hice. Is there any instance of a woman giving birth to
something that is not a human being, a baby, like I don't know
a turtle, or, as our First Lady suggested, a breakfast taco? I
mean, is there any instance where anything other than a human
being has been born?
Ms. Goss Graves. Well, there definitely are instances where
people have stillborn.
Mr. Hice. It is still a baby?
Ms. Goss Graves. I guess the point is----
Mr. Hice. It is still a person, is it not?
Ms. Goss Graves. If I can finish? I actually think that
Representative Shannon's point about viability goes to exactly
what you are naming. When the Court----
Mr. Hice. I am talking about personhood, not viability.
Ms. Goss Graves.--viability line, it did so because the
consideration was whether or not the fetus can live outside of
the body.
Mr. Hice. There are many people who cannot live without
insulin. Does that mean we should kill those people who cannot
live without insulin?
Ms. Goss Graves. But there is no way for them to live.
Mr. Hice. Listen, this is my time.
Ms. Goss Graves. Oh, I thought you were asking us, so I was
wanting to have an opportunity to explain. So, it is not a
question of turtles, or I am not really sure. What it is is a
question of----
Mr. Hice. It is a question of personhood. That is what I am
getting to. And there is not an instance that I am aware of of
anyone giving birth to something other than a person. So, if it
is a person after birth, it, by extension, is a person before
birth.
Ms. Goss Graves. I really hope people are watching today
because the question on the table is about abortion for sure.
But actually, the conversation you are having is about
contraception. It is about in vitro fertilization. It is about
a whole larger set of questions----
Mr. Hice. No, you mischaracterize. I am having a clear
discussion about abortion and the fact that it is a person. It
is a person that we are dealing with, and that person after
birth clearly is a person and, therefore, by extension, before
birth is also a person. And the question comes down to when
does a person have the right to life, and when does a person
have the right to healthcare. And we can argue all day that
abortion is healthcare. It certainly is not healthcare to the
baby. Healthcare protects life, and abortion, by definition,
destroys life. It is not healthcare. But if we are talking
about a person, which we are, we are not talking a taco, we are
talking a person in the womb.
Ms. Goss Graves. We are talking a fetus, which is a medical
term.
Mr. Hice. Let me ask you. Let me go back, Ms. Hawley. You
brought up this issue of healthcare. Let's talk about
healthcare and the baby. What is the issue involving abortion,
and healthcare, and the baby?
Chairwoman Maloney. The time has expired. The witness may
answer.
Ms. Hawley. So, I think there are a few things on which we
need to set the record straight. One, that in ectopic
pregnancy, treatment for that condition never involves an
abortion. If you go to Planned Parenthood's website, they make
clear that treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not an
abortion, or at least they used to. I know there has been some
scare mongering going on. The same is true of a miscarriage.
And abortion is a situation in which a child, as the Supreme
Court explained in Dobbs, is purposely put to death. It is the
intentional destruction of the human being. Neither
miscarriages, nor medical emergencies, nor ectopic pregnancies
involve that situation.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman from Illinois, Krishnamoorthi, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
having this important hearing. Ms. Lopez, I would like to
direct your attention to this graphic that I brought here.
Basically, it talks about the number of arrests of women for
abortion, miscarriage, and pregnancy specific crimes in the
United States.
[Chart]
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In the 32 years, between 1973 and 2005,
there were 413 such arrests of the women who had these
different procedures. Between 2006 and 2020, so in 14 years,
there were 1,331 arrests of women for these procedures. So, in
32 years, we had about 400, and in the succeeding 14 years,
there were triple that number, namely 1,331 such arrests. Now,
are you concerned that in this post-Roe world that we are
living in, in all those states where abortions are being
banned, that we are going to have an increase in the number of
arrests of women for such procedures?
Ms. Lopez. Thank you for your question. I am absolutely
concerned. I don't think it is hyperbole to say that,
especially in Texas. It has essentially been a case study for
what a post-Roe world has been, even before S.B. 8, based on
the restrictions. But since S.B. 8, we have seen immense fear,
and grief, and isolation from pregnant people who desperately
need help and do not have the means of leaving the state or the
city they live in to access care. I also think that bans and
restrictions on abortion do not actually stop abortions. They
just, as we see there, make it more difficult to access care
and make the idea of criminalization far more of a reality.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Representative Shannon, if abortion is
made illegal in Georgia, are you afraid that women in Georgia
will be prosecuted and imprisoned for seeking these types of
procedures?
Ms. Shannon. I am worried about that, and we do know that
from 1973 to 2005, the instance of low-income and,
particularly, Black women were disproportionately criminalized
for having miscarriages. What a lot of people don't realize is
that a lot of the same medications that are used for
miscarriage are also used for medication abortion, which is
typically performed at home. And there is really not a way to
determine if someone had a miscarriage or if someone had an
abortion. And so, what we do know is that our criminal legal
system is really good at locking up Black and brown folks. And
so, I am very worried that when a person has a miscarriage, and
they are interrogated by law enforcement, or they are
prosecuted, I am very worried that our criminal legal system
will likely believe Karen, but not believe Keisha when she says
she had a miscarriage.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, Ms. Goss Graves, let me just ask
you a question. Earlier you were asked the question, what does
abortion have to do with healthcare. My understanding of this
situation is that we are talking about the healthcare of the
mother. And in so many instances, to protect the life of the
mother, an abortion, unfortunately, is sometimes required. Can
you speak about that and how, in that situation, where
protecting the life of the mother might lead to the mother in
jail?
Ms. Goss Graves. You know, when Professor Goodwin was here,
she said twice a statistic that I am still startled by, which
is that Black woman were 118 times more likely to die from
giving birth in Mississippi than from abortion, and there are a
lot of health instances that come up. Pregnancy is an
inherently risky endeavor. And you know, it isn't the public
story----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Not for the male, for the female?
Ms. Goss Graves. For the pregnant person, right. For the
person who is carrying a pregnancy, it is inherently risky. And
the idea that there is no mention of the life, or the health,
or the mental wellbeing, either in the Supreme Court majority
opinion or in the remarks earlier----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And that is why the majority of
Americans think it is radical and extreme. And so let me just
ask you this question. These prosecutors who are going to go
after all these women, we know the number of arrests are going
to skyrocket very shortly. All those overzealous prosecutors
and law enforcement are going to go after women. They are going
to want to get their data. They are going to try to go after
their data, which has often been entrusted to big tech app
companies that keep their sexual health information and
reproductive health information. Chairwoman Maloney and I have
launched an investigation with regard to protecting the privacy
of that information. Could you please comment to me,
Representative Shannon, on the importance of protecting the
privacy of that reproductive health information?
Ms. Shannon. Well, protecting the privacy of reproductive
health information is not only important, but it is also
important to protect privacy for all healthcare decisions. And
that is why we keep reinforcing that the choice of whether or
not to carry a pregnancy is a healthcare decision. And it is
important that every person in this country experience the
freedom of privacy to be able to make their own healthcare
decisions with their own processes without government getting
involved.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you. I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is recognized.
Mr. Grothman. Great. First of all, I would like to refer to
a letter here that I am going to submit to the committee from a
group called Family Action or Wisconsin Family Action,
Wisconsin Family Council, which I dealt with a lot when I was a
state legislator. They were attacked with Molotov cocktails in
Madison, Wisconsin. The reason I bring it up is not just that
they were attacked, but the apparent lax or uncaringness of the
law enforcement in Madison, Wisconsin.
This is a disturbing trend we have seen around the country.
We know there were variety of cities in which riots broke out a
couple of years ago, including both in Madison and Kenosha,
Wisconsin. Both times, it didn't seem like law enforcement
would engage the rioters. And I think the reason they didn't is
that the political leaders felt that if you were doing
something--that was, the far left, which sadly runs your Party
today--we will allow people to physically attack you, almost
kill you in this case, and we won't do anything about it, but I
think it is something that should be in the record. I think it
is something that perhaps other Congressmen on this committee
would like to read to see where we are headed as a country. So,
I would like to ask this letter to be submitted.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Now, I have a few questions here.
I know in Wisconsin, abortion was legal at the time, or
abortion was illegal at the time Roe v. Wade went into effect.
And, in fact, the statute that was in effect was put in place
in, I believe, 1849, either 1848 or 1849. Could you comment on,
in our country, the state of laws regarding abortions, the time
Roe v Wade went into effect, Ms. Hawley?
Ms. Hawley. So, absolutely. At the time Roe v. Wade went
into effect in 1973, as I mentioned in my opening testimony,
that decision, that judicial decision, again decided by seven
male authors, overturned the pro-life laws of nearly every
single state. If we look back in time to 1868, when the
Fourteen Amendment was passed, nearly three-quarters of the
states criminalized abortion. So, you just can't look at any
point in our Nation's history and derive some sort of right to
an abortion. And, in fact, the opposite is true in our country
and the states have long protected life.
Mr. Grothman. OK. And I believe there were, what, either
two or three states in which abortion was legal in 1973. Is
that right?
Ms. Hawley. That is correct, with significant restrictions.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Next question. At the time, and you said
this before, but I think it is something that merits people
pondering on as to where we are in morality in this country.
The state of ultrasound today compared to 1973, when almost
every state realized that having an abortion, killing that
little baby, we have all seen the ultrasounds today, was a
horrific thing. But could you comment on the change in the
status of ultrasounds between then and now?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. So, we have had 50 years of
scientific advances, and everyone that has attended a pregnancy
ultrasound at various points, you know, at six weeks, you have
the heartbeat. At 8 to 10 weeks most of your internal organs
for the baby are forming. And now we even have 3D and 4D
ultrasounds that allow you to see the baby's face. You can even
sort of determine what it is they are going to look like.
Mr. Grothman. So much more obvious today that abortion is
horrific than it was in 1973?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. And, in fact, if you look at page
two, I believe, of my written testimony, we have an example of
an ultrasound in 1973 and one today at 15 weeks, and the
differences could not be more stark.
Mr. Grothman. OK. This idea of abortion, and particularly
even late-term abortion, in places like North Korea, China,
Vietnam, some of the most repressive countries in the world, we
know what is going on with the Uyghurs there in China. Do you
want to comment in general on the type of countries that would
consider it important to legalize abortion?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. So, we see totalitarian regimes,
such as North Korea, such as China.
Mr. Grothman. Not just totalitarian. I want you to comment
on the belief in God.
Ms. Hawley. So, I think we see in these countries the idea
that life is not precious, that life is not valuable. Again, if
you----
Mr. Grothman. What did they do to churches in North Korea
or China?
Ms. Hawley. Neither are churches valuable in North Korea or
China.
Mr. Grothman. Right. People there, do the people who run
the country believe in God?
Ms. Hawley. So, I think they prosecute the church there,
sir.
Mr. Grothman. Right. Is there a correlation then between
countries that allow abortions, late-term abortions in
particular, and countries that almost the state religion would
be atheism?
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Briefly answer.
Ms. Hawley. The one interesting thing is that when
Christianity was born, one of the Roman culture that
Christianity emerged from was one in which was devastating to
young children. Parents had superintending rights. A child had
no right to life.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired. We
have to keep into our timeframe.
Mr. Raskin, you are now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Nearly 8 in 10
Americans say that the decision about whether or not to have an
abortion should be left to women and their families and their
healthcare providers. 62 percent of Americans say that they
support a nationwide law protecting a woman's right to choose
consistent with Roe v. Wade, including not just the vast
majority of Democrats, but 57 percent of Independents and 40
percent of Republicans, although they don't appear to have much
voice in the Republican Caucus today. But there are lots of
Republicans who agree with us that this is a choice that
belongs to women, girls, and their families. That is the vast
majority of the American people.
Now we want a nationwide law which codifies Roe v. Wade as
a woman's right to choose because we believe this is
fundamentally a question of personal freedom and autonomy. They
want a nationwide law which makes it a crime to have an
abortion anywhere in any case, including where women and girls
who have been raped or victims of incest. And that follows
logically, and naturally, and honestly from their position,
which we have heard represented several times today, that life
begins at conception in every case. So how could you allow a
woman to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest? That
would be murder, is what they say.
Now, Ms. Goss Graves, I am worried about this. As the
founder of the Republican Party, President Lincoln said, ``A
house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this
government cannot endure permanently half slave and half
free.'' Can we endure half free choice states and half
theocratic-compelled pregnancy states? Is that going to work
for America? What do you see as the future of this?
Ms. Goss Graves. I am deeply worried. This is the first
time in our Nation's history where the Supreme Court has taken
away an individual right in the Constitution, a right that two
generations of people have come up with. So now you have
grandmothers looking at their grandchildren and understanding
that they are going to have fewer rights. It cannot stand, and
it is opening up a range of unprecedented legal issues that I
never thought we would be dealing with: whether or not you can
travel and leave your state, whether or not you can be
surveilled, whether or not you as an individual are truly free
in this country. That is the debate we are having.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Senator McMorrow, I want to come to
you because in a number of the compelled pregnancies states,
they are already talking about passing laws to make it a crime
for a woman to leave a state for the purpose of obtaining
healthcare in a state where abortion is still lawful. And they
want to make it a crime for people who enabled them to leave
the state, whether they are in another state or they are in
that state. I have introduced legislation with a couple of
colleagues, which I hope we will be hearing this week or next
week, to allow for the free travel of American citizens among
the states for the purposes of obtaining healthcare that is
lawful in the destination state. Is that something that you
would think is important in Michigan?
Ms. McMorrow. I do think that it is important, but I want
to take a step back, too, and remind everybody how devastating
that is going to be for those who are low income, particularly
women of color, younger girls who do not have the means to
travel. And just to bring it back to an example here in
Michigan, our attorney general, Dana Nessel, has said that she
herself in her capacity will not enforce the 1931 law, but she
has also said that she cannot compel county-level prosecutors
to do the same. So not only is there going to be a difference,
depending on what state you live in, what state you are able to
travel to, but down to your zip code, whether or not you can
get direct access to care, whether or not you have access to
physicians who are trained, who don't feel fear.
And I want to go back to the story that I shared in my
testimony, Michal and Jordan shared with me that they learned
that there were only four physicians in all of Metro Detroit
who had been trained to carry out the procedure that they
needed. More than almost half of the state's population live in
Metro Detroit. That is only four physicians for more than 4
million people. So, we have already seen this, so I agree with
you, but it is even much more local than that.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate that, Ms. Shannon. Finally,
the Supreme Court has targeted the constitutional right to
privacy, more than a half century of precedent. That
constitutional right to privacy guarantees women the right not
to be sterilized against their will, which is what happened to
thousands of women in the last century, including in Virginia.
Do you fear that there are governments which are going to, on
the one hand, stop women from making their own decisions about
abortion, but go back to----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. We
are going to be enforcing the five-minute rule.
Ms. Shannon. Can I briefly answer?
Mr. Raskin. Can she answer the question?
Chairwoman Maloney. Very briefly.
Ms. Shannon. Sure. So, we don't even have to go back years
ago to force sterilization. We actually had this happen in
Georgia, in an immigrant detention center in Georgia, where
folks were forcibly sterilized. So that is a real threat.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Thank you. Mr. Jordan from Ohio is
now recognized.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Hawley, is the left
trying to intimidate the U.S. Supreme Court?
Ms. Hawley. I think if we look at the evidence from the
last few months after the leak of the Supreme Court opinion and
Dobbs, absolutely.
Mr. Jordan. I agree with you. I would argue it actually
started before the leak. Was it intimidation when the Minority
Leader, then Minority Leader, currently the Majority Leader of
the Senate, went on the Supreme Court steps and said, ``Gorsuch
and Kavanaugh, you will face the whirlwind. You are not going
to know what hit you.'' Was that an intimidation tactic?
Ms. Hawley. So, it seems like when a Senate minority leader
stands on the steps at the Supreme Court and calls out two
sitting justices by name, I believe that would be interpreted
as a threat.
Mr. Jordan. When the Democratic chair of the Judiciary
Committee introduced legislation 15 months ago to add four
associate justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, was that an
effort to intimidate the Court?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely.
Mr. Jordan. When the Judiciary Committee, and I just came
from there, just next door--we are having a markup as we
speak--did a concerted effort, had a hearing on Justice Thomas
and talked about his wife, was that an effort to intimidate the
court?
Ms. Hawley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. And then you mentioned the leaked opinion, and
you clerked on the Supreme Court. You have a distinguished
legal background. Was that an effort to intimidate the Court,
the first time that I know of we had a draft opinion that was
leaked?
Ms. Hawley. That is absolutely correct. It was the first
time an opinion had ever been leaked. There were a few news
reports trying to normalize that practice. That is untrue, a
Supreme Court opinion has never leaked prior to it being ready
to be issued. And as we saw, subsequent to that, 40 pregnancy
care centers have been vandalized and targeted. In addition,
Justice Kavanaugh had a murder attempt at his own home.
Mr. Jordan. Yes, you are ahead of me there, and I was just
going to point out. I only had 32 on my list. This is
frightening, 32 crisis pregnancy centers and churches since May
3, two months and one week that has all happened. That is a
concerted effort to go after pro-life people and intimidate a
separate and equal branch of government with the support of
these guys. That is how wrong this is.
So, the protests and the attacks that my colleague from
Wisconsin talked about in Madison but have happened 39 other
places around the country in two months and one week, not to
mention an assassination attempt. I think probably the first
time in American history where we have had an assassination
attempt on a sitting justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Their
whole focus is on intimidating the Court, and they are the ones
with the radical position. Mr. Raskin just said we are radical.
They are the ones who think you should take the life of an
unborn child. You could take the life of unborn child right up
until their birthday.
Voice. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Jordan. Is that accurate, Ms. Hawley?
Voice. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Jordan. No. My question is for Ms. Hawley.
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely, and I would love to set the record
straight on something Congressman Raskin said. He said that the
American people support the Women's Health Protection Act. They
do not. Less than 10 percent of the American public would
support abortion up until birth for any reason. That law
Federalizes a right to sex-and race-selective abortion.
Mr. Jordan. But it is even worse, Ms. Hawley. It is even
worse, because we know the former Democratic Governor of
Virginia didn't want it to go right up until their birthday.
This is sickening. He wanted to go after that. That is their
position. We are the party that is pro-life. We actually think
you should protect unborn children, not do what they want to
do. And it is even worse though this intimidation effort
because we had the Speaker of the House wait four weeks--four
weeks--after the Senate unanimously passed legislation to
protect justices' families after the left had posted online,
here is where Justice Barrett's children go to school, here is
where her family worships on Sunday morning. After posting
that, Speaker Pelosi says nothing to worry about. We are going
to wait four weeks until we protect the justice's family.
And I would just finally add this in the last minute, and I
will let you respond. I think it has gotten even worse. We now
have the key agency in the executive branch, the Justice
Department--the Justice Department--failing to enforce a
statute, which is directly on point which says when there are
protests at Justices' home with the intention of intimidating
them and influencing a decision pending in front of the Court,
you are supposed to deal with that. And we have a Justice
Department that refuses to do so, a Justice Department that is
now working with the left to intimidate a separate and equal
branch of government. Would you agree?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. And we see in sort of this, this
reign of intimidation, it is not only Supreme Court justices
and their families, as you mentioned, publishing online, where
they go to church, where their families, including justices
with young families, reside. Protesters at night is never
something you want your children to see. In addition, we have
got this just outrageous attack on pregnancy care centers. How
we think this helps women in need is just beyond me.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you so much. Thank you for your work in
the pro-life committee and the work you do representing
freedoms around the country. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlewoman from
Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Talib. Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may, I would like
to submit for the record, I will submit an article about the
Secretary of State of Michigan being targeted for obviously
allowing the votes to be counted in Michigan, literally in
front of her home in the dark, as well as recently uplifting
what has happened to a colleague, Representative Jayapal, a man
who basically wanted to commit a hate crime, showed up at her
home shouting and with weapon, I believe, to kill our
colleague.
I want to reiterate the importance of----
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Ms. Talib. Yes. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. It is
important to understand this has been happening a long time for
many of us, especially women of color, in this chamber.
Republicans are claiming this is about returning power to the
states, but they have said themselves that they want to ban
abortion nationwide. Kevin McCarthy himself, and Steve Scalise,
as well as Mike Pence has said it. In fact, every Republican in
this committee, though, supports legislation that would lead to
nationwide restrictions on abortion, and many of them support a
bill to impose prison time on doctors who perform abortions
after six weeks. So, we need to set the record straight and
don't let the rhetoric fool you.
With that, I do want to go to our Michigan Senator
McMorrow. You know, one of the things that has been impactful,
Senator, is the fact that historically, we have never seen
anything like this in the state of Michigan. We have collected
over 800,000 signatures to allow to repeal the ban of the 1931
ban on abortion. Is that correct?
Ms. McMorrow. That is correct. This is a constitutional
amendment, the highest number of signatures collected for any
initiative in state history.
Ms. Talib. We will get the opportunity to allow our state
to choose whether or not a woman gets the right to control her
body. Is that correct?
Ms. McMorrow. That is correct.
Ms. Talib. And do you believe, though, that this chamber
would try to attempt to overturn that state's right?
Ms. McMorrow. I do, in both the state level and the Federal
level. So, to paint a picture, Michigan in 2014, Democrats got
about 51 percent of the vote statewide. The state senate in the
chamber that I serve, Republicans held 72 percent of Senate
seats. So, this has led to an extremist view that is not in
line with the majority of Michiganders. Consistently when
polled, 60 to 70 percent of Michiganders support Roe, support
keeping protections in place, and we have seen that Herculean
effort come out in this ballot initiative.
Ms. Talib. Yes, I have never seen anything like it, and I
have worked on minimum wage, a number of other ballot
initiatives, and I have never seen this kind of support. I
would like to take the rest of the time to do something that
might be a little scary for my Republican colleagues, which is
to ask a woman's opinion.
Ms. Lopez, thank you so much for being here with us today.
What strikes me listening to your stories just how many state-
imposed hoops, loophole, you know, all these obstacles that you
had to jump through in order to carry out a personal decision
about your own body and access to medical procedure. Can you
describe--I want you to take some time because I think people
need to understand this is about human dignity and so much
more. And so can you talk about, you know, really how it made
you feel, but also just, you know, the experiences. I think
many folks that might not have the courage to be here because
they are so scared of the attacks.
Ms. Lopez. Thank you so much. I guess I can start by saying
that Texas has dozens of restrictions, had dozens of
restrictions already in place prior to Dobbs, prior to SB 8.
And when I had my abortion six years ago, I had no context or,
you know, knowledge of what a restriction was. I didn't know
that there was a forced waiting period that ended up pushing,
you know, me further into pregnancy, another two weeks, because
I couldn't access care when I needed to.
As I mentioned in my testimony, the forced ultrasound felt
horrible. I didn't understand why I was, you know, being asked
to listen to, you know, embryonic cardiac activity when I knew
I didn't want to be pregnant. And perhaps one of the most
confusing parts of my experience was my provider telling me
that the state requires that he tell patients that abortion
causes depression, infertility, and breast cancer, and then by
following that up by saying, the state requires me to say that,
abortion is 100 percent safe, and many times it is safer than
carrying a pregnancy to term.
I didn't understand why a state was providing a doctor to
spread misinformation to his patients, but I went through with
it anyways. And despite the many restrictions that I faced,
and, again, as I mentioned in my testimony, I do feel lucky
that I lived in a city that had a clinic, that I was able to
access care relatively smoothly. But what these restrictions
are intended to do is try and stop people from having
abortions, but abortion is healthcare.
My abortion was the best decision I ever made. It was an
act of self-love. And I am here today to make sure that
everybody who currently needs an abortion, who has had an
abortion, or will need an abortion is not alone, no matter what
the state tries to force upon us. Thank you, so much for----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Thank you.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of
things. Mrs. Hawley, you clerked before Justice Roberts and
argued cases before the Supreme Court, correct?
Ms. Hawley. Yes, sir. I clerked for Chief Justice Roberts,
and I have litigated before the Court, but not argued.
Mr. Keller. Yes, thank you, and our government is a
constitutional republic. In the Tenth amendment to our
Constitution, as it says here, ``The powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the
people.'' The Dobbs decision simply took abortion and said the
states will determine the laws that cover that within those
state borders, correct?
Ms. Hawley. That is correct. The Dobbs decision was
actually one of judicial modesty. It corrected a 50-year error
and returned to the people and the peoples' elected
representatives the intensely moral issue of abortion.
Mr. Keller. Where it should be, and that is asking a
woman's opinion. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Following
the Dobbs ruling, pro-life organizations, especially churches,
have become scenes of vandalism and violence. On June 7, the
Department of Homeland Security issued a National Terrorism
Advisory System bulletin warning faith-based institutions of
expected threats of violence in the coming months. The FBI
issued a safety report regarding Jane's Revenge, the same
domestic terrorist organization responsible for posting flyers
around D.C. that read, ``The night SCOTUS overturns Roe v.
Wade, hit the streets. You said you would riot. To our
oppressors, if abortions aren't safe, you are not either.'' So,
we have had that happen. And since Dobbs decision leaked on May
2, over 100 pro-life institutions have been recipients of
threats, desecration, vandalism, and arson.
I ask unanimous consent to submit a list for the record
from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, outlining the recent
violence.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Mr. Keller. So, when we look at all the things that have
happened, and I am thinking, where is the outrage at the
intimidation and coercion and violence for these? So, I guess,
Ms. Hawley, what would leaders or what should leaders like
President Biden, and Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Schumer be
doing to hold these perpetrators accountable for the violence
they are either threatening or causing around our Nation?
Ms. Hawley. Well, violence against anyone, especially
against pregnancy care centers, especially against sitting
justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, should be appropriately
punished. It should be deterred. It is illegal to protest with
the intent of changing a judicial decision before Supreme Court
justice's home. That legislation should be passed to protect
those judges and justices.
In addition, I just think we should see real moral outrage
at the idea that we are targeting pregnancy care centers. These
are the centers that come alongside women to support them, to
provide them with tangible resources, and counseling, and
medical care, all of it free. And to think we would want to
take this away from women who need it, it is insane to me.
Mr. Keller. When we are talking about helping women and the
most vulnerable, which are the unborn lives in our society, I
think that when we don't stand up for that, what are the things
will you not stand up for if you don't stand up for life? If a
person isn't going to protect your life, do you think they are
going to protect any of your other rights?
Ms. Hawley. No, and as we think about unborn babies, these
are the tiniest and most vulnerable humans among us. They are
most deserving of our protection, and it doesn't matter whether
they are viable or need a little bit more help. They are fully
human, they are fully alive, and they deserve life.
Mr. Keller. Being a father and a grandfather--I have three
lovely granddaughters--and I will tell you right now that
holding them for the first time, there wasn't anybody that can
convince me that wasn't a child or a life prior to birth.
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. I also have three children and
agree completely.
Mr. Keller. So, I thank you for being here today. I thank
you for that opinion, of a great woman who has served so well
for our Nation. Thank you so much.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Ro Khanna, is recognized
for five minutes, and then we will recess for votes. Mr. Ro
Khanna.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your
leadership. The overturning of Roe v. Wade means that the state
is literally requiring women to have forced pregnancies, and
this is a matter of equality. It impacts a women's education,
economic opportunities, and securities. Ms. Goss Graves, how
does legal abortion help ensure work force participation for
women and reduce the gender pay gap?
Ms. Goss Graves. So, what we know is that if you look over
time in the last five decades, there has been tremendous
progress for women, in particular, their ability to control
when and whether in the pacing of their pregnancies has meant
that they could enter careers, that they can enter fields that
they weren't present in before. And when we think about the
other side and where we are now, what this is likely to mean
for people is that not that they would have more children than
they did before. It is just that they would have children when
they didn't want them and at a time that didn't work for
themselves and their families. It is likely to put more people
into deep poverty. And the vast majority, more than 60 percent
of people who have abortion care, they are already parents, so
it will affect them and their families deeply.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Ms. Goss Graves. It is so important
that you emphasize that this is going to make the gender
inequality worse. And this is fundamentally an issue not just
of the right to make decisions, but also fundamental equality.
That's why I think it is an issue under the 14th Amendment.
Let me turn to you Ms. Lopez. Why is access to abortion so
important for young people who still are in school or just
about to enter the work force?
Ms. Lopez. Thank you. I would first like to state that
young people have just as much of a right as anyone else to
exercise bodily autonomy. But it is especially important that
young people have that autonomy in order to create the lives
for themselves to thrive, and do, and create the families they
want on their own terms, and that they are not being forced
into pregnancy by any government or by any, you know, other
entity, that they are able to make these decisions themselves.
And that decision also includes if they decide to continue a
pregnancy. All pregnancy outcomes should be decided by the
pregnant person, and the laws should reflect the health and
safety of pregnant people.
And I would also just like to state on the record that
young people, you know, patients also face harassment,
providers face harassment every single day for providing
healthcare. And so young people deserve to, you know, access
abortion care and all of sexual and reproductive healthcare
free from state intervention or stigma.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Ms. Lopez. Senator McMorrow, thank
you. I recommend your four-minute speech to everyone. I am sure
millions of people have already seen it, but I was very moved
by that. If you could take just 30 seconds, because I have got
two questions left. But could you speak to the legal abortion
benefits for mothers in the United States?
Ms. McMorrow. Absolutely. As I said in my opening
testimony, Congressman, getting and staying pregnant is
incredibly difficult. So, I can tell you just some of the
reaction immediately once the Dobbs decision came down, there
was a group of local residents on Facebook who created a Google
document of OBGYNs who will tie your tubes, no questions asked.
The ability to ensure that abortion access is safe and secure
means that women and families can pursue pregnancy knowing that
if it doesn't go perfectly, that they will be OK.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you so much, Senator McMorrow, and I
appreciate all your advocacy. My final question. Ms. Hawley, I
read your piece actually on Edmund Burke and stare decisis. I
disagreed with it, but it was well argued in terms of Burke's
position. I wonder if there is any possible common ground?
Surely you would agree with me that in this country, we should
never prosecute criminally women if they choose to get an
abortion. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. Women should never be prosecuted.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
Votes have been called. To accommodate members' voting, the
committee is going to take a short recess, and we will
reconvene 10 minutes following the beginning of the last vote
in the series. The committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is recognized.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
staying around and working with us on our vote schedule today.
Our Declaration of Independence was unique in that it
introduced into the world a profound set of ideals to be
perfected in subsequent generations. And that was that there
were certain inalienable rights that were given to mankind, and
they weren't a grant from government, but they were a gift from
God. And the Declaration of Independence went on to state that
among these were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And it is notable that those ideals upon which the rest of the
rule of law under which we live is all based on, that first
essential right, and that is the right to life.
With the Dobbs decision, in a single day, millions gained
that right that had been taken away previously. And if we look
at the development of science over the last 50 years, and I was
born in 1975, just a couple of years after Roe and ultrasounds
were very rare. I asked my mom for my ultrasound, and there was
not one to be found there. There isn't one because of that. And
when Roe was being argued, even the dialog at the time was that
it was a blob of tissue that was in development, and we know so
much more now than we did before. And we know that a child at
six weeks, we can even detect the heartbeat. We know that
science is even showing us that a child can feel the pain of an
abortion.
And so, there is a lot of misinformation that has happened
since the Dobbs information that I thought we would need to
address this. As a matter of fact, the chair said that the
Dobbs decision was, ``undemocratic.'' Could you speak to, Ms.
Hawley, the Dobbs decision and if it is undemocratic or not?
Ms. Hawley. Certainly, Congressman Cloud. The Dobbs
decision is not anti-democratic. It is an act of judicial
modesty. It is a decision in which the majority clearly
explains that the Constitution's text, structure, and history
are absolutely silent on a right to an abortion. And as Justice
Alito explained, that means that we, the people, get to debate
this issue to decide this issue, and the Supreme Court got out
of the business of legislating abortion.
Mr. Cloud. So, if anything, it restored a democratic
process to the discussion of abortion, is it?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. Justice Alito's opinion leaves it
to the people.
Mr. Cloud. That is my understanding as well. It was also
said that pro-life people who embrace this are extremist,
draconian is how this decision was. We have heard about its
threat to democracy and all those sorts of things. When we
talked about extremism and draconian, can you compare where the
United States stands in relation to other countries when it
comes to abortion?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. So, under Roe v. Wade, the United
States was one of the most extreme and most permissive nations
on abortion in the entire world. We were 1 of only 7 countries
in the world, including countries like China and North Korea,
who have horrible human rights records, to allow abortion up
until the moment of birth for any reason at all.
Mr. Cloud. So that is a very rare. We are not on the right
side of that. So, are there any state laws that would prosecute
women for an abortion?
Ms. Hawley. There are not, no. There are no state abortion
laws, no, that would prosecute women for abortion.
Mr. Cloud. Any Federal?
Ms. Hawley. No.
Mr. Cloud. Because we have heard a lot about that. Could
you speak to ectopic pregnancies and abortion because we keep
hearing that that is an issue as well?
Ms. Hawley. Thank you so much for that question. I think
ectopic pregnancies are an issue of, as you said,
misinformation. There have been social media posts suggesting
that women won't get treated for an ectopic pregnancy because
doctors might be afraid of performing the procedure, but that
is absolutely false. Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not,
in fact, an abortion. An abortion is the intentional taking of
a human life. An ectopic pregnancy is a tragic situation in
which the baby is developing outside of the womb, and treatment
for that, as Planned Parenthood has recognized, is simply not
an abortion.
Mr. Cloud. Now, you spoke to what is the norms in the
world. Both you and I, I think, believe that life begins at
conception, and this is a question of life, you know,
ultimately, and that is what makes it so difficult and why the
views are so deep seated when it comes to this.
But when it comes to what is normal, the Democrats have
proposed two bills that we will be voting on Friday: H.R. 8296
and H.R. 8297. And these bills would, among other things, allow
for abortion because of disability, what sex the child is, what
race the child is, potentially. There are provisions in it to
serve as an end around parents being involved in their child's
life. There is ambiguous language that can potentially force
pro-life doctors, many whom their faith would dictate to them
that this is not a proper thing to do, to perform an abortion.
And what is troubling to me is, also, we have gone from the
left from wanting it to be rare, supposedly to now we want
taxpayers to fund it, not only in our country to pay for other
people's abortions, but also for abortions overseas.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you for your statements today. Thank you
for being here.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlewoman from California, Ms.
Porter, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Porter. Madam Chair, I seek unanimous consent to enter
into the record findings from the Turnaway Study of women who
sought abortions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Ms. Porter. Before Dobbs, even under Roe, Americans who
wanted an abortion were denied. The Turnaway Study examined the
lives of hundreds of people who were denied abortion and
compare their experiences to people who got abortions. Ms. Goss
Graves, are you familiar with the Turnaway Study?
Ms. Goss Graves. Yes, I am.
Ms. Porter. I want to use my whiteboard to help Americans
understand what this study found. Let's start with health.
Which women were more likely to suffer from physical health
problems: women who had an abortion or women who were denied an
abortion?
Ms. Goss Graves. Women who were denied an abortion.
Ms. Porter. Women who were denied an abortion. Denying
abortion does not just correlate with worse physical health but
also leads to financial problems. Which group of women, those
who received an abortion or were denied an abortion, were more
likely to be unemployed?
Ms. Goss Graves. For sure those who were denied an
abortion.
Ms. Porter. Denied an abortion. Which group of women was
more likely to live in poverty?
Ms. Goss Graves. Definitely those who were denied abortion.
Ms. Porter. And which group of women was more likely to
have low credit scores, to have their applications for housing
or car loans denied?
Ms. Goss Graves. Those who were denied an abortion.
Ms. Porter. So, to summarize, women, when the decision to
have an abortion was taken out of their hand, and they were not
able to have an abortion, to make their own decision, they had
worse health outcomes, were more likely to be unemployed, were
more likely to face financial problems, like living in poverty
or having low credit scores. Women who were denied abortions
are four times more likely to live below the poverty line. They
are less likely to be able to afford food and housing for
themselves and their children. Ms. Goss Graves, can you explain
why people who are denied abortion are more likely to have
these forced outcomes than someone who obtains an abortion?
Ms. Goss Graves. If you are denied an abortion, you are not
having a child based on when you actually want to, and what we
know is that there is a wide range of reasons people determine
that it is not the right time to have a child. It could be that
their health is not the reason that they want to have a child
at that time, but it also could be because they are not
financially secure, if they are in a relationship where it does
not make sense. There are a range of reasons. That is why it is
so important that that decision be the decision of the person
who is actually pregnant, the person who is actually going to
have that child, about whether or not they do that.
Ms. Porter. Ms. Goss Graves, I completely agree. We should
let people who are pregnant make the decision whether or not to
carry that child, to deliver that child, and to raise that
child.
I am a mom. I love my three children. I know firsthand the
joys and hardships carrying, birthing, raising, and providing
for children, including doing it alone as millions of women do.
That is why I believe so strongly that extremist politicians
shouldn't have the power to force anyone to become a parent.
The choice to give birth is not just a major health decision.
It is an economic decision for an entire family, including
other children that that person, that mother or parent may
have. Many women experienced a significant decrease in their
incomes after having a child, and income declines even further
after the birth of additional children. Many parents are forced
to leave the work force altogether to care for their kids.
When extremist politicians prevent Americans from making
their own decisions, they force patients to give birth to
children that they may not be able to care for, that they may
not be able to protect and raise safely, and that they may
force to grow up in poverty. We should live in a free society.
Americans should have the freedom, the liberty to grow their
families when they are ready to do so, not birth babies because
of government mandates. I am here at home, sick with COVID, and
caring for my two children alone. I do not need, and an
American women do not need, any politicians telling them when
and if they should make the decisions to raise children.
I thank you, Ms. Goss Graves, for your testimony and
everybody on this panel, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is now recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Biggs. I thank the Chairwoman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today in this incredibly politically
charged hearing, and then we get to have another one tomorrow.
In fact, the Democrats are calling for five hearings in five
days effectively on this topic. Democrats really are the
abortion extremists relying on a strategy of fear. That is
really what it is.
I associate myself with a video that was put in there, and
I will say one thing. When Mr. Jordan was asking questions, he
forgot to ask the questions about bounties put up by ShutDownDC
on Supreme Court justices. That is absolutely outrageous, and I
haven't heard any of my colleagues across the aisle, not one
say, hey, maybe we shouldn't do that, stop doing that. It is an
incredible, incredible strategy of fear that they are
perpetuating, and they are extremist.
Governor Northam said that third trimester abortions are
done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may
be a fetus that is non-viable. So, in this particular example,
if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would
happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept
comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that is what
the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would
ensue between the physicians and the mother about the outcome
for that baby.
I associate myself with the comments of Senator Rubio who
said that he never thought he would see the day in America
where America had government officials who openly support legal
infanticide. Elizabeth Warren, what did she say? She said, ``In
Massachusetts right now, crisis pregnancy centers, they are
fooling people who are looking for pregnancy termination. They
outnumber true abortion clinics by 3 to 1. We need to shut them
down to Massachusetts. We need to shut them down all around the
country.'' Wow. That is from the liberal left.
I will ask a question now of Ms. Hawley. Ms. Hawley, did
the Dobbs decision shut down abortions completely nationwide?
Ms. Hawley. The Dobbs decision returned to the state the
authority finally to be able to protect life. In 1973, a
majority of men on the Supreme Court declared that no matter
how compelling a state's interest was in protecting life, no
matter what we learned about a baby's development, states could
not protect that life until 22 weeks. With the Dobbs decision,
a decision of judicial modesty, the people and their elected
representatives get to make that choice.
Mr. Biggs. And I am looking now about a recent article in
The New York Times, ``When it comes to abortion rights,
Democrats need to lean into the politics of fear. The Party
needs to scare voters and show that they, too, are scared of
the voters themselves.'' That is the politics of fear that
happens here.
And let's just think for a second, gestational limits on
abortion in the United States compared to international norms.
I have got a series of articles on that, and I am going to go
through this really quickly because time goes by fast. I want
to give you some European countries. Austria limits to the
first three months and the rest of these are in weeks: Belgium,
12; Bulgaria, 12; Croatia, 10; Cyprus, 12; Czech Republic, 12;
Denmark, 12; Estonia, 11; Latvia, 12; Italy, 12; Hungary, 12;
Greece, 12; France, 14.
You know what? America's laws pre-Dobbs were some of the
most radical on this planet, right up until exit of the birth
canal. And what has happened since then? The left is okey dokey
with this strategy of fear and violence. Ohio Right to Life
says offices targeted twice by pro-abortion activist. Democrats
have launched ads in lifestyle mags. Summer of Rage. I
appreciate that someone said 32 or some 40. I have one data,
June 9, 56 attacks, including one in Bethesda over the weekend.
Attacks on churches, pro-life pregnancy centers continue. This
one is in Hutchinson, Kansas. The next one I will submit is
from Bullhead City in my state.
The Justice Department has announced that it has a
reproductive rights task force, and the threat from the left is
that abortion bans could lose economic edge. That is what The
New York Times reports. Nothing is further from the truth. This
is a strategy of fear. It is a strategy of threats and
intimidation against members of the Supreme Court. It is a
clinic on disinformation by asserting that this law prevents
abortion throughout the country.
Mr. Biggs. Last question for you, Ms. Hawley. Can men
become pregnant?
Ms. Hawley. Biological women may become pregnant.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlewoman from Missouri, Ms. Bush, is now recognized.
Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I thank you, Chairwoman Maloney for
convening this urgent, urgent hearing. Within minutes of the
far-right Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe and Casey,
my home state of Missouri was the first state to enact its
trigger law and ban abortion care. And despite the wrong
information provided by my colleagues on the other side, there
are state laws that prosecute people for performing their own
abortions, which includes trans men. So trans men, more than
women, trans men and non-binary people do become pregnant.
The criminalization of abortion care has a ripple effect
across the healthcare and criminal legal systems. The majority
of states where abortion care is now banned have threatened to
enforce criminal laws that target healthcare providers for
administering medication and providing abortion care to those
who need it. In Missouri, any provider suspected of inducing an
abortion could face felony charges and, if convicted, a
sentence of up to 15 years. In other states like Texas, the
penalty includes the possibility of a life sentence.
I have heard from people in St. Louis who tell me that they
are afraid to cross the state lines to access abortion care
which they need because they fear being investigated and
prosecuted at home, but many of these laws exempt pregnant
people. We know that pregnant outcomes have long been
politicized, which is happening in this moment and
criminalized. People have been investigated and punished for
experiencing pregnancy loss, for struggling with substance use
during pregnancy, or self-managing abortion care in states
where abortion care is banned and in states where abortion care
is legal and protected.
A local prosecutor in California charged two women with
murder because of their pregnancy laws. I am concerned that far
right extremist anti-abortion lawmakers in my own state, like
our State Attorney General, may move to further politicize our
rights and criminalize abortion care and pregnancy outcomes
unless we speak up more, unless we act and act and push harder,
and until we organize to block extremist anti-human rights laws
and fully protect reproductive freedom.
So, Representative Shannon, can you please describe what
measures are being taken to protect people from being
criminalized for seeking abortion care in Georgia, it's a red
state like mine?
Ms. Shannon. Thank you for the question and thank you for
your work on this issue. Yes, we have had DAs in Georgia as
well as local municipalities come out and say that they will
not use government funds to prosecute folks or to investigate
folks for having had an abortion should Georgia's 481 law go
into effect, which would effectively outlaw abortion. And so, I
am glad that you mentioned about what is going on with
criminalization because we also, at the same time, have DAs
across the country who are hyperaggressive about finding ways,
bending and twisting the law, using other laws to actually
criminalize folks. And we do know that there has been an uptick
of criminalization of miscarriages across the country.
Ms. Bush. Thank you. Thank you so much for those insights
and thank you for what you do. Ms. Goss Graves, can you please
explain how the criminalization of abortion creates a public
health emergency?
Ms. Goss Graves. So, abortion care is both effective and
safe. What is really, really deeply concerning is if people are
either afraid to seek medical care if they need it, or if
providers are chilled, if they are afraid to provide medical
care, not knowing the state of the law. So, it is those things
that stand to worsen the health of someone who is seeking
abortion care. And the other thing that we know is that
carrying a pregnancy to term and childbirth is inherently
risky, especially for Black woman. The maternal mortality rates
are extremely high, so none of these laws will do anything to
aid that and will only worsen those outcomes.
Ms. Bush. Thank you for the clarity. I appreciate that. As
our witnesses have extensively described, the impact of this
devastating Supreme Court ruling will fall hardest on Black,
brown, and indigenous communities, people with disabilities,
undocumented people, queer, and trans folks, youth and the most
marginalized members of our society. Federal legislators have
an obligation, all of us who chose, who signed up to take care
of the full, to serve, to represent, the full--. regardless of
what you look like, where you come from, how much money you
have, we signed up to work for everyone. We need to work in
lockstep with our state and local counterparts to protect
access to reproductive healthcare for everyone regardless of
where they live. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Thank you.
The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. LaTurner.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. The Supreme
Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health was a
monumental one. It signifies a victory for pro-life Americans
across this country, but, most importantly, the innocent
unborn. But make no mistake, the Dobbs ruling is not just a
victory for the pro-life movement, but it is a victory for our
Constitution and for the principle of federalism. If you want
to have abortion laws in this country to your liking, elect
officials that agree with you and pass it in the legislative
body and states throughout this country. That is the way to
achieve it.
But let's not pretend that the right to abortion existed in
our Constitution in this country, and contrary to what some of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, this decision
in no way endangers lifesaving medical care for pregnant
mothers. In fact, the Mississippi statute in question
explicitly excludes procedures to treat ectopic pregnancies and
miscarriages from the definition of abortion, and there are
nearly identical exceptions in every state that has enacted
pro-life laws. This protection of both unborn children and
their mothers is what a consistent and compassionate ethic of
life looks like.
In my home state of Kansas, citizens will have the
opportunity this August to vote for the value of them both, a
constitutional amendment, which rightly reserves the right to
pass laws regulating abortion to the people through their
elected representatives. I am a firm supporter of this change
and hope that the momentum from the historic Dobbs decision
compels Kansans to restore authority to citizens to decide
abortion laws. I celebrate the impact of the Supreme Court's
decision and its implication for the sanctity of human life,
both for mothers and their unborn children.
Ms. Hawley, thank you for being here today. In your
opinion, why is the regulation of abortion better suited for
state legislatures than the unelected Supreme Court or even us
here in Congress?
Ms. Hawley. Well, the state legislatures are very close to
the people. I think Justice Alito's opinion laid out that 55
percent of the voters in Mississippi are women, and so those
voters in Mississippi now have a voice and a vote. They are
able to tackle these really difficult issues, and we can allow
women to express their opinions on this issue.
Mr. LaTurner. There has been a lot of conversation among my
colleagues on social media and by pro-abortion organizations
that warn women that their government is tracking their
activity across health apps and their search history on web
browsers, and will use that information to seek criminal
penalties related to abortion. Do any of the Roe trigger laws
include criminal enforcement mechanisms against women who seek
abortions?
Ms. Hawley. No, they do not.
Mr. LaTurner. What would you say to women who are scared
they will face criminal penalties for miscarriages, pregnancy
loss, or ectopic pregnancies, because, as you know, this is a
real issue and real anxiety, even among those that consider
themselves pro-life but want exceptions? There is a lot of fear
mongering going on out there, and I would like you to address
it.
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. Well, as you mentioned Congressman,
every state's law has an exception for life of the mother, and
this means that doctors and physicians will be able to treat
the mother when her life is in danger. Similarly, the idea that
treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion is simply
false. That is scaremongering. It is untrue. It is a tragedy
that actually 1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies.
Women usually find out about this between 6 and 8 weeks, and it
is a horrible circumstance, but treatment for that is not an
abortion. There is no intent to take the child's life. There is
no reason to be worried either as a doctor and physician, or
especially as a woman.
Mr. LaTurner. And what do you think damage is caused by
this fear mongering?
Ms. Hawley. So, I think, you know, discovering you are
pregnant, whether it is something you have longed and hoped
for, or something that is unexpected, can be overwhelming. And
to have this additional fear mongering on top of that, I think,
just adds to that uncertainty of women. We need to come
alongside women and support them. We need to provide them with
the resources that are necessary for them and their children to
survive. The Dobbs decision is not only a legal victory, but it
is a rallying cry. We must become a culture that values life,
that values women's lives, and provides them with the resources
they need throughout their pregnancy and beyond.
Mr. LaTurner. And if I could get you to comment on this--it
was referenced earlier--the vandalism that has been done
throughout this country and the intimidation that is being
attempted. In my home state of Kansas, as I mentioned, we are
trying to pass them both because our State Supreme Court
wrongly decided that our 1859 constitution had a right to
abortion in it, which is absolutely absurd. But we are trying
to right that, and we have instances in Kansas right now where
churches are being vandalized. Would you comment on that
briefly?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. Well, I think you are right that
the Roe v. Wade decision not only misled the American people by
imposing a constitutional right to abortion, but also State
Supreme Court, so hopefully Kansas can rectify that. As far as
the vandalism----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlewoman from California, Ms.
Jackie Speier, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Speier. Madam Chair, thank you so much for holding this
hearing.
Let me say at the outset to my good friend, Mr. Jordan, to
others on the Republican side, yes, we deplore violence against
crisis pregnancy centers. We deplore violence against justices
and judges. We deplore violence against the institution we call
the U.S. Capitol. We also deplore violence against abortion
clinics. And you have said nothing about the fact that 11
people have been murdered at those clinics: four doctors, two
clinic employees, one security guard, one police officer, and
one clinic escort. Last year, there were 186 arsons targeted at
abortion centers. There were 123 acts of vandalism, 123
incidents of assault and battery. Stalking increased by 600
percent last year over 2020. Invasions of abortion facilities
increased by 129 percent. Assault and batteries increased by
128 percent and suspicious packages by 163 percent. I did not
hear one word from any of you deploring and denouncing those
acts of violence, so you have very selective memories.
Let me start, Madam Chair by speaking about mothers. I am a
mother. I am a mother who had an abortion. Fifty-nine percent
of women in this country who have abortions are mothers. They
love their children. They want to provide for their children.
Across this country, women are asking themselves is it even
safe to get pregnant. This is not hyperbolic. As states
criminalize abortion, they are also making it illegal to treat
many pregnancy-related complications. I have had two
miscarriages. Miscarriages happen a lot, 1 in 5 pregnancies. It
is often indistinguishable from an induced abortion. It is the
same procedure, a D&C or a D&E. And the treatment for
miscarriage is the same as the treatment to induce medical
abortion. If a miscarriage doesn't progress naturally, which
could take up to 3 or 4 weeks, a woman may need medication
abortion, or a D&C, especially if there's signs of infection.
When I had my first miscarriage, I was told I was going to
have to wait a period of days before they could give me a D&C.
I can't begin to tell you what it is like having wanted that
fetus to become a baby and know that it was dead in my body,
and I had to walk around with that. I had a mother at a church
once say to me, ``I had to carry a dead fetus to term for nine
months.'' We are now living in a country where women will be
denied miscarriage treatment because doctors will rightly worry
about whether or not they are going to be thrown in jail for 99
years. The same goes for providers treating women who are
seriously ill. If a woman has a 50 percent chance of dying, is
that sufficient to provide an abortion? How about 20 percent,
or 10 percent? At what point do we value the life of the woman?
Ms. Goss Graves, how will criminalizing abortion impact
patients who are experiencing miscarriage or other pregnancy-
related complications?
Ms. Goss Graves. You know, we are already hearing reports
on the ground for providers being uncertain about the care that
they can actually provide when faced with someone who has an
ectopic pregnancy. And to go back to the point that you raised
around miscarriage, what is likely to happen is an acceleration
in miscarriages being investigated. And that might not be
everyone's experience, but I am telling you it will be the
experience of people who are more likely to be low income, and
Black, and brown people. You know, this is a population that
already has too much unfair contact with the criminal justice
system. And so, what we will see is going through a miscarriage
loss turning into a criminal event. Nothing about that helps
the life or health of a person who is pregnant, and all of it
chills the actual safe and effective care people need.
Ms. Speier. Thank you. We are not talking just about
miscarriages. Senator McMorrow, you have spoken about needing a
D&C after your IUD punctured your uterus. Can you tell us about
your experience and what it would have meant for you if
abortion had been illegal?
Ms. McMorrow. Yes. After having my daughter, I had an IUD
placed, and that IUD ruptured through my uterus. It is a very
rare instance that required me to be scheduled for a
laparoscopy and a D&C to have it removed. The impact is that I
could have died if I had not been able to have the procedure to
have that removed. And we are already hearing from the
University of Michigan medicine saying that they fear
training----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired. Very
moving though.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Madam Chair. As we all know, we are
here today because of the lifesaving decision that the Supreme
Court made on June 22 in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's
Healthcare Organization case. This historic decision simply
restored the rights of voters in each state to allow voting
citizens to have a say in protecting life.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the
record this article that states that 71 percent of Americans
support limits on abortion. It is a Fox News article dated
January 20, 2022.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you. The impact of the Supreme Court
decision in Dobbs will now let the American people decide on
the issue of abortion. American voters are able to elect
representatives that they believe best represent their beliefs,
and I believe they will do exactly that. But Democrats have
brought us here today to talk about the impact of the Dobbs
decision, but the impact is exactly what I just said. So, we
should do away with this hearing and change the focus to things
that citizens really care about, like rising inflation, rising
crime, and open borders that are putting the safety and
security of our families at risk all across the country in
every state.
Let me remind you again of the impact of Dobbs. It allows
American voters to have a say on abortion. That is all it does,
and that is why Democrats are terrified, and that is why we are
here today. Which leads me to my first question. Ms. Hawley,
Democrats seem to think it is a bad thing to let American
voters have a say on abortion as opposed to having the courts
say it. If Americans wanted to legalize abortion, wouldn't they
simply vote for a majority of candidates into office that would
do that? I mean, is it a bad thing to return it to the states?
It is not a Federal issue, right?
Ms. Hawley. Well, I think we can see the extremeness of the
Democratic pro-abortion position when we look at the Women's
Health Protection Act. So, if we look at that Act, it permits
abortion up until the moment of birth for any reason. This is a
more extreme policy of all but seven countries in the world,
including China and North Korea, countries that have horrendous
human rights records. In addition, it allows abortions for any
reason, including sex, including race. It supersedes every
single state law. So commonsense provisions that might require
parental notification, or that might say there are some safety
and health regulations that apply to abortions, those two are
gone under this nationally mandated abortion-on-demand-through-
all-9-months-of-pregnancy bill.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you. So, I think it is much better that it
goes back to the states for the people to decide. Ms. Graves,
you are the president and CEO of the National Women's Law
Center. I mean, so you are a lawyer, obviously, probably a very
good one.
Ms. Goss Graves. I hope so.
Mr. Clyde. I would hope so, too. Is the word ``abortion''
anywhere in the Constitution?
Ms. Goss Graves. Well, there are lots of words that aren't
actually in the Constitution----
Mr. Clyde. I just asked a question, and I just need a
``yes'' or ``no'' answer, please. Is the word ``abortion''
anywhere in the Constitution?
Ms. Goss Graves. The word ``abortion'' is not in the
Constitution.
Mr. Clyde. It is not. Thank you very much. OK. Earlier this
year, our new Supreme Court Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was
asked what a woman is, and she had a difficult time defining
that. Since you are the president of the National Women's Law
Center, I was hoping that you could define what a woman is for
us in this committee hearing.
Ms. Goss Graves. Well, as the President of the National
Women's Law Center, you can imagine I say women a lot in my day
job.
Mr. Clyde. OK. So, I am just asking for the definition.
Ms. Goss Graves. All right. And so, what I will tell you is
I am a woman. That is how I identify.
Mr. Clyde. OK.
Ms. Goss Graves. But I wonder, however, if, in part, the
reason that you are asking a question is that you are trying to
suggest that people----
Mr. Clyde. I am simply asking a question, and I simply want
an answer.
Ms. Goss Graves. And so, I think it is actually really
important to be very clear here, that there are people who
identify as non-binary. I think about 5 percent of young
people----
Mr. Clyde. OK. All right. We are not going to go there. I
was hoping that maybe you would say something that maybe we
learned in high school biology that has to do with X and Y
chromosomes, which define male and female, but I guess we are
not going to get there.
Ms. Goss Graves. Well, I don't think that is the legal
question. I am definitely a lawyer and I think----
Mr. Clyde. I have another question for you. I saw that in
your annual report, you previously received money from groups
like Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Are you still receiving
funding from Planned Parent Action Fund or any other Planned
Parenthood Affiliate?
Ms. Goss Graves. Well, I certainly support the leadership
and work of Planned Parenthood. The work they are doing right
now is hero work. We don't have any----
Mr. Clyde. Are you receiving money from them or not?
Ms. Goss Graves. We don't have grants from Planned
Parenthood, but I support the work they do, the work they do
around the country----
Mr. Clyde. Madam Chair, I would ask for unanimous consent
to submit to the record the annual report of the NWLC, which
dates a contribution from Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection, and the gentleman's
time has expired.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you. I thought I had 16 seconds.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms.
Kelly, is now recognized.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair. Even before the Dobbs
ruling, the United States was facing [inaudible] crisis with
the highest maternal mortality rate [inaudible] was equally
felt. More than [inaudible] died from [inaudible].
Chairwoman Maloney. We are having trouble with the
connection, Representative.
Ms. Kelly. Hmm. Can you not hear?
Chairwoman Maloney. Now we can hear you better. OK.
Ms. Kelly. OK. As we know, Black women are 3 to 4 times
more likely than white women to experience fatal pregnancy
complications. Ms. Goss Graves, can you speak to why Black
women are more likely to die during pregnancy, and how will
Dobbs make this even worse?
Ms. Goss Graves. Well, so one of the reasons why the
maternal mortality rate is higher for Black women is that they
have less access to healthcare more broadly. They are less
likely to have access to insurance. But one of the other things
that we know is that the discrimination and bias that they
receive in healthcare makes the pregnancies that Black women
have even more serious. So, when they raise concerns about
their health, they are not always taken as seriously. And I
commend the work that this Congress has done to try to deal
with the maternal mortality crisis in this country. I have such
deep, deep worries that we will be accelerating on the wrong
track, especially in states that have ran to ban abortion,
leaving people without options to decide whether they want to
have children themselves.
Ms. Kelly. And we should be especially alarmed and
concerned that the states with the highest rates of maternal
mortality, as you have alluded to, have also banned or are
about to ban abortion, and more women will die as a result.
Representative Shannon, Georgia has one of the worst mortality
[inaudible] mortality crises in the country. The anti-
choice politicians who advocate for forced pregnancy, are
taking any steps to address the maternal mortality crisis in
your state?
Ms. Goss Graves. Could you repeat the question? It cut out.
Ms. Kelly. I am sorry. The anti-choice politicians who
advocate for forced pregnancy, are they taking any steps to
address the maternal mortality crisis in your state?
Ms. Goss Graves. You know, some of these folks, once
pressured and being told that they were not living their values
of wanting to make sure that everyone has access to healthcare,
which is what they claimed, they did support the effort that I
led to expand postpartum Medicaid. But one thing I would like
to correct on the record, because I have heard this many times,
the disinformation of how the United States is radical compared
to other countries. Most countries don't legislate abortion.
They don't. You know why? Because they know that abortion is
healthcare, so this is not even something that is even
legislated in most countries. So that is why you don't see
that, you know,this is something that is regularly talked about
because they know that this is not a political issue, and it
was not a political issue until the 1980's when Republicans
used it to coalesce their base. So, all the talk about how
radical the U.S. was in protecting abortion rights is just
completely false.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you for clearing that up. Maternal
mortality rates of Black women increased during the pandemic,
and I am alarmed and enraged that [inaudible] made that
disparity worse. Current mortality is a public health threat,
and we need to address it [inaudible] and not forcing women to
carry pregnancy [inaudible]. I just want to say on the record
that my constituents and other [inaudible] in Illinois care
about this issue. They care about inflation, but they care very
[inaudible] and their rights, and their privacy. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The lady yields back, and the gentleman
from South Carolina, Mr. Norman, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I find it
amazing the statement ``abortion is healthcare.'' That is
totally unbelievable that you are uttering abortion is
healthcare. Is it healthcare for the child? Is it healthcare
for that person? To make that statement, it baffles me. Let me
ask the three of you, and I think I know Ms. Hawley's position,
but starting with Ms. Lopez. I assume you agree with
infanticide, the killing of a child, a perfectly healthy child
at birth?
Ms. Lopez. I don't accept the basis of that question, but I
do believe abortion is healthcare.
Mr. Norman. I know. I get that. But, I mean, do you support
infanticide, killing the child after he is born?
Ms. Lopez. I do not agree with the basis of that question,
but I believe that abortion is healthcare.
Mr. Norman. What's the basis? OK. So, I will take that as a
yes, you do agree with infanticide. Ms. Shannon, do you agree
with infanticide?
Ms. Shannon. Well, I think you are using inflammatory
language to basically describe a situation that does not
happen. We don't have infanticide happening. Doctors would not
do that, and neither would folks who have carried pregnancy----
Mr. Norman. OK. Do you agree if a healthy child was born
that it is that woman's right to decide if it lives or dies?
Ms. Shannon. What I think is, based on your question, you
have a very low opinion of pregnant people because if you think
that anybody would carry----
Mr. Norman. No, no, answer the question.
Ms. Shannon. Excuse me. Excuse me.
Mr. Norman. Answer the question.
Ms. Shannon. I am answering it.
Mr. Norman. No, you are not. I would take it that you
agree----
Ms. Shannon. Do you want an answer or you want to keep
talking over witnesses?
Mr. Norman. No, no.
Ms. Shannon. What I am telling you is nobody would carry a
pregnancy and then decide on a Monday because they are bored
that they want to have an abortion. That is ridiculous, and it
is inflammatory what you are saying. You are talking about
families who are in tough situations where folks have been
excited about carrying a pregnancy. Most of the abortions that
happen later in pregnancy are really tragedies where it is
really a disappointment for everyone involved.
Mr. Norman. I take it with all those words, you do agree
with basically murdering a child after they are born. Ms.
Graves, could you answer that? ``Yes'' or ``no?''
Ms. Goss Graves. I have to say, Congressman, how you just
characterize the Representative's statement is extremely
inflammatory and the type of thing that it is dangerous.
Mr. Norman. And what she is saying----
Ms. Goss Graves. You guys have been talking today about the
threats against crisis pregnancy centers, which I assume are
serious and are terrible.
Mr. Norman. I have got a limited amount of time. I am not
letting you----
Ms. Goss Graves. The threats that people who work on
abortion access every single day----
Mr. Norman. Reclaiming my time. I am assuming that you are
for infanticide.
Ms. Goss Graves.--and a part of it is because of this sort
of inflammatory and outrageous language. It is not OK.
Mr. Norman. I would also say that her language----
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, let the Congressman ask his
question.
Chairwoman Maloney. He is reclaiming his time.
Mr. Norman. I will say this, it is inflammatory when she
says abortion is health----
Ms. Goss Graves. The medical procedure is actually
abortion.
Mr. Norman. Hold on. I am reclaiming my time. Now, this
being said, do the three of you all favor doing away with the
laws on the books? If a mother is carrying a child and his kid
is shot, is that murder? Is that homicide, or should that be
abolished, too?
Ms. Shannon. I don't even----
Ms. Goss Graves. Homicide for who?
Ms. Shannon. What law----
Mr. Norman. If a mother is carrying a child and gets
murdered, they are charged now, in most every state that I know
of, double homicide. They killed the mother, and they killed
the child. Is that right? Do you favor that, or do you want to
abolish that?
Ms. Shannon. Well, I will go first. I am glad you brought
that up.
Mr. Norman. No, I am asking Ms. Graves first. She is a
lawyer.
Ms. Goss Graves. I have no idea. I am and I used to think I
was a good one, but I have no idea what law you are talking
about but what I do know----
Mr. Norman. Do you understand that if a mother is carrying
a child and gets shot, it happened in Charlotte, North
Carolina, where a mother was carrying a child.
Ms. Goss Graves. So that's where----
Mr. Norman. Hold on. Hold on. A mother was carrying a child
when she was killed. She was charged with double homicide,
killing two people. Should that be abolished or not?
Ms. Goss Graves. One of the most dangerous times is being
pregnant, and that is----
Mr. Norman. You are not going to answer the question.
Ms. Goss Graves.--in part because there is sort of violence
at pregnant people sometimes.
Mr. Norman. Look, I have got 53 seconds. Let me just say
the Dobbs decision was the greatest decision this Supreme Court
has made. It is federalism versus states' rights. The untruths
that you all are putting out there, the left is putting out
about doing away with abortion, the states decide it. And all
these other things that you are putting out, state abortion
restrictions would not allow a physician to care for a woman if
it poses a serious threat to her life, totally false. state
abortion restrictions mean a woman with an ectopic pregnancy
must choose between jail or death. It is totally absurd. And, I
just, the Supreme Court got it right. I hope each state will
ban abortions, infanticide, which the three of you are in
agreement with.
Ms. Goss Graves. I object to that. I am not in agreement
with infanticide and I want to----
Mr. Norman. And I object to the fact that you didn't answer
Ms. Goss Graves.--I am sorry----
Mr. Norman. None of you answered the question.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Lawrence, is recognized
for five minutes.
Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I find it ironic
that my colleagues on the other side keep talking about giving
the states the right to choose about abortion, but you want to
take their right to choose away from a woman who is carrying
that child who has all of the responsibilities, healthcare, and
all of that. I find that ironic that choice only works for you
in certain scenarios.
I will continue my comments that when you talk about the
fact of healthcare, obviously you are a man. You are totally
clueless, or you don't give a darn that when a woman is
pregnant. That is a health unique situation that requires
interventions. It requires special treatment. That is why
doctors obviously specialize and care for pregnant women. It is
a healthcare issue.
My question goes to Senator McMorrow. We know that state
officials, as we keep hearing about the choice, the choice
going to the states, like yourself, a majority of people in the
states like Michigan push back against the effort to take our
constituents back in time. My question is, what are we doing
and what can states do, because this conversation about just
the mere fact that having the ability to have healthcare during
a pregnancy to make a choice is not healthcare shows that we
are dealing with a population that we cannot educate. Please
comment on that.
Ms. McMorrow. Thanks, Senator. And first of all, I am so
grateful to hear from our Republican Federal colleagues that
they plan to pass legislation prohibiting partisan
gerrymandering, because if we are returning this issue to the
states and state legislatures, we must ensure that people have
a fair right to elect their choice of elected officials that
represent their values, because right now in Michigan, and
courts have ruled as such, that is not the case.
We are one of the most badly gerrymandered states in the
country. And all you have to look at is the effort behind the
ballot initiative, the number of people, volunteers who have
stood up with collected signatures to challenge the vocal
extreme minority that are passing legislation against the will
of the majority. So, we need the Federal Government, our
colleagues in Congress to ensure that on the local level, every
single voter is able to elect their candidate of choice that
aligns with their values.
Ms. Lawrence. Thank you. I want to ask a similar question
to Representative Shannon. I understand that Georgia previously
passed a six-week abortion ban. Now, what steps are officials
in your state taking to help ensure that Georgian residents are
able to access abortion care if the six-week ban goes in
effect?
Ms. Shannon. So, DAs across the state are saying that they
will not use funds nor prosecute folks for getting access to
healthcare, which is abortion, and local municipalities are
also saying that they will not allow funds to be used to track
folks or stop anybody from getting access to care.
Ms. Lawrence. Thank you. I want to use the remainder of my
time. As a woman, when I gave birth to my second child, for my
second pregnancy, I began hemorrhaging, and I remember all the
doctors and nurses running in because my life was in danger.
And you know, my doctor, who is trained in pregnancy and care
for pregnant women, he told me that I should not have another
child because my risk level of a pregnancy would be very, very
destructive on my body. And I was a married woman, and to say,
you know, I should not have another child, God blessed me with
two healthy beautiful children from two pregnancies. But I am
being told by a medical professional do not have any more
children, Brenda, we almost lost you today.
So, for the ignorance and the lack of compassion for women
who have the amazing opportunity to give birth, to say that
abortion is not a part of healthcare, because as a married
woman, if for some chance I had become pregnant, again, what
will be my options? My husband would have to say let's start
planning your funeral. I yield back. And I wish to God that
when we get in our arrogant position of dictating through
government, that we have respect for women and the respect for
our ability to make choices on our lives. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentlewoman from South Carolina, Ms. Mace, is
recognized.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank
everyone for their time being here today. I am from South
Carolina that recently implemented a fetal heartbeat bill that
had exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother because
I put them in there. It is one of the few states in the Nation
that has a fetal heartbeat bill, with those exceptions, because
I told my story of being raped when we were first debating the
issue just a few years ago. And I hope that the state of South
Carolina, the legislature, and the Governor keep those
provisions in there and also do not legislate whether women can
go to other states or other locations if they so choose from
the state of South Carolina.
But in all honesty, I am a constitutional conservative. I
take the Constitution and my oath of office very, very
seriously. And even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about
and discussed the concerns that she had from a constitutional
perspective on Roe v. Wade for decades. Even Joe Biden, 40-plus
years ago, was talking about overturning Roe v. Wade. There are
a number of folks, and it was under President Obama when he had
a super majority in the House, the Senate, and had the White
House and said that they would codify Roe v. Wade, and then
chose not to because the left has used it as a fundraising
juggernaut for decades rather than take the issue seriously.
And now we have Supreme Court justices, we have protests,
and riots, and folks that are showing up armed on the lawns of
our Supreme Court justices. And whether you are left or right,
it is the third branch of government, and we should not be
encouraging these kinds of activities. The United States, and I
don't want to forget, it is the states, not the courts, that
are the true laboratories of democracy, and leaders at the
Federal, state, and local level are elected to represent the
people in their states. And what Roe does isn't necessarily
what the media has said or even some of my colleagues have said
on the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It is not going to eliminate
women's care for ectopic pregnancies as I have heard. I had a
miscarriage when I was first having my children. It is not
going to eliminate healthcare for women who have ectopic
pregnancies or who have miscarriages.
And I don't know, you know, if you can mention one state
that is going to eliminate healthcare for women whose lives are
in danger. One state. Does anybody have one state that is
trying to say that we are not going to allow any healthcare for
a woman whose life is in danger? Is there one state that is
making that a law? Go for it, Ms. Shannon.
Ms. Shannon. Yes, I would like to weigh in on that, and I
am just going to tell you what providers told me. When this
issue came up in Georgia, providers told me that they were
worried even when you make an exception for the life of the
pregnant person, that they would be----
Ms. Mace. Pregnant mother.
Ms. Shannon. For the pregnant person----
Ms. Mace. Female, woman, mother?
Ms. Shannon [continuing]. That they would be challenged as
to when it is appropriate to make the decision to perform an
abortion, and so this put fear in doctors. And I will tell you
this, you live in South Carolina. I don't know what your
provider situation looks like, but we already have a shortage
of specialists in Georgia. Over half of George's counties do
not have access to a OBGYN. We can't afford to lose doctors
because they feel like they are going to be criminalized or
sued civilly because they----
Ms. Mace. But therein lies the debate. You bring up a good
point. Therein lies the debate today is why so many women
either don't have access to birth control, don't have access to
medical care or healthcare, don't have access to understand if
they want to keep their child, how to give it up for adoption.
Why are so many women having abortions, why they don't have
access to care, and that is really what the debate I feel
should be like.
I would be remiss today if I didn't mention that some of
our most important constitutional decisions have overruled
other prior precedents because there has been some mention by
folks across the aisle that the Supreme Court is not
legitimate, but I want to mention a few here. In Brown v. Board
of Education, 347 U.S. 483, in 1954, the Court repudiated the
separate but equal doctrine, which allows states to maintain
racially segregated schools and other facilities. By
happenstance earlier this week, I visited the Federal
courthouse in downtown Charleston, where in 1950 was Thurgood
Marshall, who brought Briggs v. Elliot, arguing that school
segregation in South Carolina was unconstitutional. This was
the first case nationwide to challenge school segregation as a
violation of the U.S. Constitution. That case would eventually
become Brown v. Board. And the Court has found then, as it has
found now under Roe v. Wade, it was right and constitutional to
overturn that particular precedent.
I appreciate, Madam Chair, for the time today, and I yield
back.
Mr. Lynch. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields.
The chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from
Vermont, Mr. Welch, for five minutes.
Mr. Welch. I thank the witnesses, and I thank the chair and
my colleagues. In Vermont, we have a constitutional amendment
that we we'll be voting on that would enshrine the right of a
woman to make her decision about reproductive choice. We have
passed a law signed by a Republican Governor that would protect
a woman's right to make that decision.
Now, I want to say two things. No. 1, I am not aware of our
U.S. Supreme Court ever passing a law or making a decision that
took away a right that had existed, in this case reproductive
freedom under Roe, for 50 years. I am aware of the Court making
decisions, as they did in Brown v. Board of Education, to
expand rights that are in the spirit of the Constitution and
equality under the law, which has been the aspirational goal of
our Constitution and our Declaration. But it has always been
about reaching beyond where we were as opposed to taking back
what had been acknowledged.
Second, when I returned to Burlington, Vermont, on the day
of the Court decision, there were demonstrations across
Vermont, and there have been other times when I have appeared
at demonstrations when an action taken by a branch of
government was very upsetting to people in Vermont. And
oftentimes, I have experienced people's anger at the actions
that were taken. This one was different. It was fear. It was
fear. And it was fear about what this meant for a woman's right
to make her decision about her own reproductive choices. It was
also fear about the erosion of privacy and what the
implications were for contraception, same-sex marriage, and a
whole range of cases that have essentially respected the
individual's right in the sanctity of his or her privacy
protection, and that awaits us.
The second point is that we know that abortion is a very,
very important topic for everyone. With our witnesses there is
some disagreement here, and it is a passionately held position.
But what we had since Roe was an opportunity for people to make
their own decisions and not impose their decision on someone
whose decision was different. And what I have seen since the
Dobbs decision is in our divided society, an escalation in the
division that is really very dangerous for our country because
we are seeing legislatures now pass laws that take away a
right. It is animated by people who not only have made a
decision that they never want to have an abortion, but who then
want, through politics, to impose that decision that is theirs
onto others, and I think we should all be concerned about that
division. And I am hearing from medical practitioners an
immense amount of apprehension that they will be second
guessed.
Ms. Hawley, I will ask you. Mr. Khanna had asked you about
whether a woman should ever be prosecuted, and of course you
answered no, and I really appreciate that. Do you think a
doctor who performed an abortion based on her medical judgment
that that was necessary to protect the health of the woman
should ever be prosecuted?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely not. So, I think there are two
issues here. Women should never be prosecuted for having an
abortion. Women are so often harmed by abortion. They suffer
emotional, physical consequences. Every state allows for
emergency exception to save life of the mother. Mississippi
allows that in the physician's best judgment.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Graves, or Professor
Graves, I think you had mentioned that the Court had never
taken away a right. Could you just elaborate a little bit on
that in my remaining time?
Ms. Goss Graves. This is the first time in our history
where we have had a court take away an individual right, and I
think that is exactly why we are seeing this level of legal
chaos. We have shaped our other laws and systems around the
idea that abortion was legal in this country. And so, what that
means is sort of the individual and personal freedom that
people had to make those decisions, to plan and determine
whether they have a child are no longer guaranteed to be
theirs, and the fundamental floors are not state-by-state
ideas. We are one Nation with one Constitution with a
fundamental floor.
Chairwoman Maloney. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has
expired.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer,
is recognized.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Hawley, there were
no women on the Supreme Court when Roe was decided, one woman
when Casey was decided, and three women when Dobbs was decided.
Additionally, there are 2,295 women in state legislatures today
across the country. Women are more represented in government
today than any time in our history. Members of state
legislatures are voted into office by their constituents to
represent their constituents, is that correct?
Ms. Hawley. That is correct.
Mr. Comer. The Supreme Court justices are expected to judge
the law, not public opinion, correct?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely.
Mr. Comer. So, would you agree that state legislatures are
the best equipped to regulate abortion based on the beliefs and
opinions of their constituents?
Ms. Hawley. So, the Dobbs decision says that because
abortion is nowhere within the constitutional structure or our
Nation's history, then the people and their elected
representatives are allowed to make that choice.
Mr. Comer. Some websites, such as needabortion.org, are
cautioning women to avoid crisis pregnancy centers, telling
them that they are unregulated and unlicensed. Ms. Hawley, are
pregnancy centers unregulated and unlicensed?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely not, and that makes me sad. We are
steering people away from organizations that want to help them.
Mr. Comer. Do they give subpar services to women?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely not. We heard testimony yesterday at
the Senate hearing that San Francisco's Planned Parenthood
refers to the pregnancy care center for other services aside
from abortion.
Mr. Comer. I agree with that, with your assessment on the
pregnancy centers. And could you elaborate what services do
pregnancy crisis centers offer to women and babies after the
birth of the child?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. So, pregnancy care centers strive
to come alongside a woman as she is pregnant and beyond. They
provide, you know, diapers and formula, those sorts of things,
after birth. They provide educational training. Sometimes they
will have great fatherhood initiatives. We haven't talked much
about that. But abortion has made pregnancy and childhood a
woman's issue. We need the fathers to step up as well. They
continue with job training services, sometimes they help with
housing and those sorts of things, and often these workers
become lifelong friends and mentors. They have the pictures of
these children up on the refrigerator. It can be a great
relationship.
Mr. Comer. That has been what I have gathered. We have
several really impressive crisis pregnancy centers in Kentucky,
and in my congressional district, especially the one in
Henderson, Kentucky, just do magnificent work and appreciate
everything they do. Let me ask you my last question, Ms.
Hawley. Radical groups, like Jane's Revenge and Ruth Sent Us,
have taken credit for vandalizing church and crisis pregnancy
centers across the Nation. The group has also tweeted locations
of where Supreme Court justices reside, where they are having
dinner. They protested outside justices' homes and even
disrupted church services. Can you, in closing, tell us what
impact does political violence have on the function of our
Nation's institutions and on our rule of law?
Ms. Hawley. Well, I think intimidation and political
violence is intended to disrupt the rule of law, and we see
this with the attacks on pregnancy care centers, with the
threats on justices' lives, on their families. And the name,
you know, ``Ruth Sent Us'' is so ironic because Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg was herself a critic of Roe v. Wade for the
reason she said it was a heavy-handled judicial intervention
that was unnecessary and short-circuited the democratic
process. In addition, she and Justice Scalia were famously good
friends. There is a great picture of them riding an elephant
together, and they demonstrate for us that it is possible to
disagree and yet be civil.
Mr. Comer. I think that is a great example. I think I have
seen pictures of them playing cards together many times, so.
Well, I appreciate you being here. I appreciate all our
witnesses being here. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, is recognized.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you and
Ranking Member Comer for holding this very important hearing. I
also want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for
your willingness to appear here in person and also to testify
remotely and to help the committee with its work.
As a lawmaker, I would like to turn to explore the wider
legal framework ramifications that this decision in Dobbs v.
Jacksons Women's Health and the broader impact on the right to
privacy which the Court had previously held was supported by
the U.S. Constitution in Roe v. Wade. You know, since it was
decided in 1973, Roe v. Wade has been cited in more than 4,500
cases, including more than 140 Supreme Court cases, more than
2,600 lower Federal court cases, and nearly 2,000 state court
cases. For nearly 50 years, Roe and its progeny have stood as
the law of the land, reflecting a delicately determined legal
balance between the fundamental right of a woman to make a
decision about her reproductive health, free from unnecessary
governmental interference and the legitimate interest of the
state.
But importantly, Roe also affirmed, and underpinned, and
solidified the individual right to privacy of every American
that is derived from the due process clause of the 14th
amendment. According to the Court, this constitutional
guarantee to personal privacy includes, ``only personal rights
that can be deemed fundamental or implicit in the concept of
ordered liberty.'' And it also extends to activities related to
marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships and
child rearing, and education. In overruling Roe and
disregarding five decades of carefully deliberated precedent,
Justice Alito's majority opinion assures, nonetheless, that
nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on
other precedents that do not concern abortion. But given the
indispensable role of Roe, and its line of cases, and our
rights to privacy framework, I am not so sure about that.
Ms. Goss Graves, Justice Alito's majority opinion takes
great pains to distinguish the right to abortion from other
privacy-related rights. In stark contrast, the National Women's
Law Center, your institution, has warned that Dobbs ``lays out
a roadmap for eviscerating other important rights.'' I would
like you to talk about that, about the wider impacts, that this
decision impacts those wider rights, those privacy rights.
Ms. Goss Graves. Well, our first major concern is that it
upends the idea of the right to privacy. As you named, the
right to privacy had been articulated before Roe and has been
built upon following Roe, whether you are talking about
contraception, or intimate relationships, or same sex-marriage
more recently. But the other thing that was deeply concerning
about Justice Alito's opinion is he basically says that if it
was not a right that was well-grounded in our Nation's history
at the time of the 14th Amendment, it is not one that should be
afforded respect. Well, women, at the time of the 14th
Amendment could not practice law, could not have lines of
credit, couldn't own property separate from their husband's,
you know. So, if we have to go back to the rights that women
had in terms of controlling our lives and future and destiny,
we are all in trouble at that time.
And then the last thing that I will just say is that
totally missing from a lot of the conversation today, but
certainly Justice Alito's opinion, is the right to control your
own body and make decisions about your own body. That is not a
small idea. It is a giant idea and is not a small idea to just
stay pregnant or be forced to give birth. That is a traumatic
idea for people in this country.
Mr. Lynch. Yes, one would think that if there is a right to
privacy. And also, Justice Alito in his opinion at page nine
says that abortion was not recognized in the Constitution, but
he adds neither was privacy. And it just causes me to wonder
that if the relationship between a woman and her doctor about
her health, if that is not within the right to privacy, I am
not sure I can imagine anything that is, and that causes me
great concern as well.
Well, my time has expired. I want to thank you all for your
attendance here and your willingness to help the committee with
its work. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney.--back.
And the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Brown, is now recognized
for questions.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney and Ranking Member
Comer, for holding this hearing. It is important to acknowledge
that abortion bans and restriction do not affect all people
equally. Ms. Graves, can you explain how abortion bans and
restrictions impact women of color in particular?
Ms. Goss Graves. So, women of color are disproportionately
residing in the states that are banning abortion, so that is
the first thing to think about. But even if you go beyond
there, right now you are going to have sort of two different
situations. It is either that people are going to be able to
get access to medication, abortion, or they are going to be
able to travel. Each of those things put additional hurdles
that are going to come down on people very, very differently.
It is not a small idea to just pick up and travel to get your
own healthcare. It requires you to take time off, which women
of color are less likely to have. It might require you to
arrange childcare for the children you already have.
But the last point is that we should not be confused about
the criminal penalties that are going to come to not just
providers, but to people who are seeking care and anyone who
helps them. The states around the country are not saying the
things that I have heard today in this hearing room about how
there won't be any criminal punishment. They are saying the
exact opposite and passing laws with many, many years of
criminal punishment attachment.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. As you explained, when we discussed
the health impacts of abortion restrictions, we must also
address the structural racism faced by people of color in our
medical system. Across the United States, communities of color
experience systemic health disparities, including higher rates
of uninsurance and stigma. Maternal health outcomes are also
directly correlated with race. As we have heard a number of
times in this hearing, Black women are 3 to 4 times more likely
to die in childbirth, and if you are in Mississippi, that is
exponentially higher. Ms. Goss Graves, how do laws that force
people to continue their pregnancies present unique health
threats to people of color?
Ms. Goss Graves. Well, you have to start with the fact
that, as you name, the access that people of color have to
healthcare just full stop. Right now, healthcare isn't readily
available in every community. People aren't always covered in
terms of insurance. Not every state has expanded Medicaid to
meet the needs of the lowest-income folks. So, we already are
in a situation where healthcare access is worse. And so, if you
don't have an ability to decide whether or not you terminate a
pregnancy on your own terms, what we know from the studies is
that it is likely to have worse health and potentially life
outcomes for that person. That is going to disproportionately
affect people of color who already have less access to
healthcare.
Ms. Brown. And I think it is also important to note that
many minimum wage workers are women, and especially,
specifically women of color, a disparity this committee has
taken on as it is working to address. But for people with less
income, the costs associated with abortion care, which you
touched on, includes the cost of the procedure itself,
transportation costs, childcare, and taking days off from work,
already pose barriers to receiving it. State restrictions that
force pregnant people to travel long distances to see a
provider, make abortion care even more unaffordable.
Representative Shannon, how will the ripple effect of
abortion's ban on access to other reproductive health services
particularly impact people of color?
Ms. Shannon. Well, as I mentioned before in my initial
testimony, outlawing abortion would basically amount to folks
who have resources would be able to get access to care, which
we know that Black and brown folks are disproportionately
represented in the number of folks who make minimum wage
throughout the country. So, it is going to boil down to do you
have the financial resources, do you have childcare, do you
have the wherewithal to be able to travel to another state to
get care, potentially have to stay, you know, for a period of
time. And so, all of these things are things that folks of
color will be less likely to be able to access.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. So, I think it is pretty clear,
people of color already face racial and ethnic disparities
related to other health outcomes from diabetes to
cardiovascular disease and breast cancer. Draconian abortion
bans and restrictions that force people to remain pregnant
further entrench the health disparities faced by communities of
color. So, it is my feeling, it is our moral obligation to do
whatever we can to lift up historically marginalized
communities that look like me, and this includes protecting and
expanding abortion access.
So, with that, every person deserves the opportunity to
make their own decisions about their body and their future. And
with that I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair, and I thank you so much
for holding this hearing, and welcome to our panel. Professor
Goodwin, you there? All right. Ms. Goss Graves, do you remember
your constitutional history? So, Ms. Hawley tells us, citing
Justice Alito, there is no provision in the Constitution that
says there is a right to an abortion. Show me in the
Constitution where the founders in writing the Constitution
granted the right to the Supreme Court to review and nullify
legislation passed by the Congress or any other legislative
body in America. Does that language exist in the Constitution?
Ms. Goss Graves. It is not how our Constitution is----
Mr. Connolly. No, it does not exist at all. So, by Mr.
Alito and Ms. Hawley's own logic, this opinion is questionable
based on the Constitution. In fact, do you remember when the
first time the right to review legislation or the legislative
actions of a legislative body was ever asserted by the Supreme
Court? 1804, Marbury v. Madison, and it was made up by John
Marshall, made up out of whole cloth. He said it was an implied
power.
Ms. Hawley. If I may.
Mr. Connolly. No, ma'am. Do you remember the first time, in
fact, they used that power they asserted in 1804, because I
think it is relevant. Dred Scott, 1857. That is the first time
in American history a Supreme Court overruled, nullified
legislation passed by the Congress of the United States. How
did that work out for us? It led directly to the Civil War,
directly, because it overturned the Compromise of 1850, and it
asserted that no Black man or woman, freed or otherwise, had
the same rights as a white person. They could never be a full
citizen of the United States, a wretched and reprehensible
decision. And the Court sadly, along with Brown v. Board of
Education, which was a good decision, has a long history,
Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu, lots of other decisions that
tragically discriminated, in some cases, almost violently
against groups of Americans.
Now, in this case, it is half the population, and despite
what Ms. Hawley said, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Ms. Hawley said she
questioned Roe v. Wade. She did, but she questioned the basis
of it. She thought viability was an inferior argument compared
to equality--equality--that men and women had the same controls
of their own body and should. And oh, by the way, for the
record, it may be true that Ruth Bader Ginsburg played cards
with, dined with, and went to the opera with Antonin Scalia,
but she got up in the morning and voted against him in every
single case involving the rights of women to have choice. She
upheld Roe v. Wade during the entirety of her time in the
Supreme Court. Is that not correct, Ms. Graves?
Ms. Goss Graves. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Connolly. So, what about this equality thing? So, do
men have restrictions? Has the Supreme Court said, men, here
are some limitations on what control you have over your own
body? Any of them? I can't recall.
Ms. Goss Graves. I don't know of any.
Mr. Connolly. You don't know of any. So let us just for the
sake of argument say, in fact there are none. With respect to
women with this decision, it is a pretty fundamental
restriction on their bodies and what they can do with them. Is
that correct?
Ms. Goss Graves. For sure.
Mr. Connolly. Now, we have heard a lot of interesting talk
about states' rights and when life begins and so forth and so
on. Is it possible, now that we are going to revert to pre-Roe
and the chaos that reigned that, by the way, led to Justice
Blackmun, a Republican-appointed conservative justice, deciding
we had to have a universal standard and a basic standard that
was a right in 1973, is it now possible that women could be
criminalized and/or medical providers criminalized by some
states, maybe even Ms. Hawley's own state of Missouri?
Ms. Goss Graves. We have already had women who have been
investigated and charge for their own miscarriages, and so I--
--
Mr. Connolly. I am sorry, did you say miscarriage? Somebody
could be charged with a crime for a miscarriage?
Ms. Goss Graves. Well, that has already happened, right.
So, we have already had that happen. The way that these laws
are written in the states that have rapidly passed them, they
would open up individuals, providers, and others who help them
seek abortion care to criminal and civil penalties.
Mr. Connolly. Astounding. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Donalds, is recognized for five minutes. Is he here? On screen.
OK. Mr. Donalds.
Mr. Donalds. [Inaudible.]
Chairwoman Maloney. We can't hear you. You have got to
unmute. We can't hear you. We can't hear you. Well, we----
Mr. Donalds. You got me now----
Chairwoman Maloney. Got it. OK.
Mr. Donalds. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. My
apologies for the technical difficulties.
My question is actually quite simple. It actually is not
really a question. Ms. Hawley, obviously considering the last
round of questioning, I wanted to actually yield you as much
time as you need, four minutes and 46 seconds, or whatever you
choose to use to actually respond to some of the previous
testimony in this hearing.
Ms. Hawley. Thank you, Congressman, a few points. The Dobbs
decision was a decision of judicial humility. It is a humble
decision to realize that the Supreme Court erred in 1973 when
it invented out of whole cloth a right to an abortion. Justice
Alito's opinion is meticulous. It explores every right that has
been suggested, including the equal protection right suggested
by Justice Ginsburg. There are literally law review articles,
law review books devoted to what Roe should have said, and no
one has been able to come up with an answer that is
satisfactory because there simply is no right to an abortion in
the United States Constitution. And when the Constitution says
nothing about abortion, as Justice Alito said, then that is an
issue for the democratic process. It is an issue for the states
and for the people. And in addition, this is something that
protects us as American people. We don't want a system of
government in which five justices who are unelected, however
well-meaning they may be, are able to make up things out of
whole cloth out of the Constitution.
And then the last thing I would like to say is that there
is no state law in the country, none, zero, that criminalizes
women for having an abortion. We realize that this is a tough
spot that a lot of women may be in. We want to come alongside
them and support them, and zero states criminalize the woman
for that decision. In addition, zero states criminalize a
physician, who, in his or her determination, believes that a
woman needs an abortion in order to have life.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you for that response. A quick question,
Ms. Graves. You mentioned briefly that there was an example of
somebody who was charged or potentially was charged over a
miscarriage. What are the specifics around that example that
you cited?
Ms. Goss Graves. Well, you may have seen recently in
California, local prosecutors had filed charges against women
who were investigated for their miscarriages, that, you know,
this is even before the fall of Roe and the Dobbs decision. The
thing is, you know, in this hearing room there have been a
playing fast and loose with medical terms----
Mr. Donalds. Ms. Graves, one quick point. One quick point,
Ms. Graves. This is a point of clarity. Just as a point of
clarity. So, the example of----
Ms. Goss Graves. So, there have been over a thousand people
who have been charged.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. In the state of California before
the Dobbs decision?
Ms. Goss Graves. Even before the Dobbs decision, the
question of miscarriage and the investigation into miscarriage
is a thing that women and anyone who is pregnant would have to
deal with. There have been over a thousand people who have been
criminally investigated for their pregnancy outcomes. The thing
that I think is important for people to understand here is that
the medical procedure of abortion applies to multiple types of
situations. I am not sure why in this room people are
suggesting that abortion isn't healthcare. It is. Abortion is
healthcare. It is on the range of reproductive healthcare that
people receive in this country. The only question is, will it
continue to be safe and effective, and will we be investigated
and criminalized for it, either patients or the providers who
provide that care. And the laws that states are----
Mr. Donalds. Ms. Graves, is there a state in the country
right now that is seeking to criminalize or having legislation
made to criminalize people who seek an abortion, women who seek
an abortion?
Ms. Goss Graves. So, people will also be self-managing
their own abortions, and they will fall under the statutes
which do provide fundamental penalties.
Mr. Donalds. Ms. Graves, is there a state in the union that
is drafting legislation to criminalize who seek abortion?
Ms. Goss Graves. There are states in the union that already
have this legislation, that have already been triggered into
effect right now.
Mr. Donalds. Ms. Hawley, do you have any comment on that?
Ms. Goss Graves. And maybe you are misunderstanding the
point that some people will travel to other providers and some
people will self-manage their own care. Each of those people
and the people who help them will find themselves in a web of
criminal and civil penalties for doing what was perfectly legal
over the last five decades.
Ms. Hawley. If I may, I think you asked me a question.
Mr. Donalds. Well, yes. With the essence of time, I am
going to yield the time, I am a little over----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
OK. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, is now
recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Make no mistake about
it, this is not about states' rights. The Dobbs decision is not
about states' rights. It is about taking away the people's
reproductive freedom while at the same time denying poor women
access to healthcare. Representative Shannon, what have you
seen on the ground across Georgia with respect to the
availability of and accessibility to providers who can
prescribe family planning services, such as birth control and
long-acting contraceptives, and how will an abortion ban on
Georgia affect the availability of these services?
Ms. Shannon. Thank you for the question. As I mentioned
before in the testimony, and I know you know this because you
represent Georgia, that most of the resources are located in
the Metro area, which is the Atlanta area, which gets most of
the attention, you know, in the country. People think that that
is what Georgia is all about, and it is not. Most of the state
does not have access to healthcare, and so, that is an issue
when you are thinking about having access to family planning,
family planning tools.
But also let me just state this. Contraception is not the
same as abortion contraception. Contraception is used to
prevent a pregnancy, and abortion is used to terminate a
pregnancy. So, we can't pretend that if we just make sure that
birth control is over the counter and free, we will not have a
need for an abortion. The two are totally different things. But
thank you for the question.
Mr. Johnson. But isn't it a fact that dispensers of
contraceptives also provide abortion services, and so without
the availability of abortion services, you are going to be even
more constrained in the ability to get access to
contraceptives?
Ms. Shannon. For some clinics, that is absolutely true, and
thank you for bringing that up.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Senator McMorrow, what would be the
impact of a ban on abortion in Michigan? What would a ban on
abortion in Michigan have? What impact would it have on the
ability of Michigan's rural and poor women, in particular, to
have access to nearby reproductive health services?
Ms. McMorrow. That is a great question. I mean, right now,
it is already a challenge. I mentioned in my opening testimony
there are only four providers in Metro Detroit. That is where a
majority of the population lives that could provide the care
that my constituents needed. It is nearly impossible already to
be able to find that emergency medical care in rural
[inaudible] State Michigan. That will only become worse if our
1931 law goes into effect and will be impossible for women and
families and anybody who needs to access the care to be able to
find that near them.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Mrs. Graves, in 2019, Georgia's
Republican Governor, Brian Kemp, signed a bill effectively
outlawing abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. A Federal
judge struck down the law last summer, but after the Supreme
Court overturned Roe, Georgia's Republican attorney general,
Chris Carr, has asked a Federal appeals court to let the
Georgia law take effect. How will ending access to abortion in
Georgia impact the entire Southeast, not just Georgia?
Ms. Goss Graves. Yes. You know, one of the challenges that
we have is that we are already in a situation where most of the
South has banned abortion. And so, people who are traveling are
already having to travel hundreds if not thousands of miles to
access care, and that is mostly and disproportionately people
of color because people of color are more likely to live in the
South. So, what is happening in Georgia is not just a problem
for Georgia. It is a problem throughout that region. And it
also puts an additional strain on the places that have
continued to provide the freedom to decide whether or not you
are going to parent. So places, you know, like Maryland, places
like D.C. that are now having a disproportionate amount of
people who are coming to seek care here.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. And Ms. Graves between 1990 and
2013, restrictions on abortion caused the national maternal
mortality rate to increase by 136 percent. Should we expect to
see high increases like this in maternal mortality once again
now that Roe v. Wade has been overruled?
Ms. Goss Graves. I think that is where we are heading, and
we should all be worried about it.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, is now recognized.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I also want to
thank all of the witnesses who have been here for much of the
day.
For more than 40 years, the Hyde Amendment has restricted
Federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services.
States can choose to allow their own Medicaid funds to be used
for abortion, but only 16 states currently do so, meaning that
in 34 states and the District of Columbia, people with Medicaid
coverage have to pay for their own abortion care. Mr. Goss
Graves, how does having to pay for your own abortion care
actually affect these women?
Ms. Goss Graves. Well, for some people it means that they
are not going to get care at all, because they can't afford it.
And now we are in a situation where on top of the actual
medical services, we have to take into account the cost of
travel, the cost of taking time off of work, the cost for
supporting families who were involved with making this all
possible.
Mr. Davis. And so, these states realize the difficulty, the
lack of funds, the lack of resources, and lack of services have
denied or are, in fact, denying their residents and their
citizens of a basic health service.
Ms. Goss Graves. I mean, if you match up the states that
raced to ban abortion first, you find that they are also the
states, many of which have not expanded Medicaid. They are also
the states that do not have paid leave programs. This is not an
agenda that is supporting women or supporting families at all.
Mr. Davis. Representative Shannon, what would it mean for
the people in Georgia to be able to use Federal Medicaid funds
to pay for abortion service?
Ms. Shannon. Did you ask me what would be the effect if
they were able to use Federal funds to pay for abortion?
Mr. Davis. Yes. I mean, how----
Ms. Shannon. Well, simply put, it would allow folks to have
access to healthcare. So as Ms. Graves just mentioned, right
now, depending on the state you live in, if you cannot cash pay
for an abortion, you will not be receiving access to
healthcare, which I would add, you know, because we know
abortion is healthcare, you are not able to get that initial
abortion. Forcing people to carry an unwanted pregnancy,
regardless of the reasons that they are having to, contributes
to morbidity and also poor health outcomes. So, you are
actually creating larger medical bills down the road
potentially.
Mr. Davis. Yes. I would think it would be like bringing
light to darkness. I can recall living in rural America before
the REA, and when things lit up, it was just totally different.
Well, as we have heard, the Hyde Amendment is an unnecessary
barrier to abortion care for people across the country, and
repealing Hyde is a critical step in achieving economic and
reproductive justice.
I am a proud original sponsor of Representative Barbara
Lee's EACH Act, which would repeal this discriminatory policy.
And last year, the House passed the first spending package in
more than 40 years that did not include the Hyde Amendment. Of
course, we have complimented ourselves for that, and I would
urge the Senate to follow our example and repeal this outdated
amendment once and for all. I thank you for your presence and
your answers. I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to
thank all of you again for your testimony. And I want to focus
my line of questioning on so-called crisis pregnancy centers
and the outside role that they may play as the Dobbs decision
pushes abortion care further out of reach for millions of
people. For anyone unfamiliar with crisis pregnancy centers, or
CPCs, they are systems of fake health clinics that are heavily
clustered in Southern states. My question, Ms. Goss Graves, is,
can you just explain what these fake health clinics are and how
they promote an anti-abortion agenda?
Ms. Goss Graves. So, someone may show up at a crisis
pregnancy center believing that they are going to a place that
can help facilitate access to abortion and be totally fooled.
And one of the reasons why they have gotten the moniker of sort
of fake clinics is that some of them have purported to actually
provide health services that they do not provide. So, if you
are someone who is trying to access abortion, you are on a
clock, more so in states that have restricted abortion care
earlier and earlier. So, one of the ways is by convincing
people to sort of be with them and stay in their system, and
what ends up happening is people miss out on the care that they
actually are seeking.
So, you know, I have to say though, about these clinics,
there is nothing that prevented them from providing the
services that they provide consistent with Roe being around.
They didn't have to wait until Dobbs struck down Roe v. Wade to
provide access to diapers or whatever other small support they
were providing for someone upon a transition into parenthood,
and that is true more broadly. We will be now facing a much
more giant crisis where accurate information is going to be so
very critical. And so, I am hoping that this body and others
will look really clearly at what sort of information people are
providing in the name of healthcare at this time where there is
so much deep confusion.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I want to discuss
proportion because there are an estimated 2,500 crisis
pregnancy centers in the United States, and they outnumber
abortion providers by a ratio of 3 to 1. My home state of
Florida has the second highest number in the country, just
trailing Texas, at 150 CPCs compared to just 65 abortion
clinics. Now, Ms. Goss Graves, Florida remains for now one of
the last safe havens for abortion access in the South. How do
all these CPCs in Florida make it even harder to travel for
abortion care? I know during in last year's committee hearing
on Texas's six-week abortion ban, we heard a first-hand account
from a woman who unknowingly walked into a crisis pregnancy
center when she was seeking abortion care.
Ms. Goss Graves. Well, what it means is that there will be
people traveling to Florida to seek care who don't know Florida
as well. And so, they might find themselves stumbling into a
crisis pregnancy center when they meant to stumble into someone
who could provide them with abortion services, and that would
be unfortunate. Again, we are on a clock here for someone to be
forced to remain pregnant, given bad information about their
own health, the state of their pregnancy or about abortion
services. What we need in this time of chaos is accurate,
medically accurate, and legally accurate information. That is
what people need the most.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right, and that is exactly what I
want to hit on. CPCs advertise themselves as legitimate health
clinics, but staff often had no medical training, and they make
scientifically baseless claims to pregnant people to scare them
out of getting an abortion. Is Representative Shannon still
with us?
Ms. Shannon. I am here.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. I mean, I want to ask you, is it
possible that residents in states like yours, in Florida or
Texas, who have to travel longer distances for abortion care,
are more likely to end up at a CPC closer to their home?
Ms. Shannon. Absolutely, and this is one of the reasons
that I sponsored legislation my second year in office to get
rid of our CPC program because, to your point, these are
misleading centers. We are not using hyperbole here. In our
enabling legislation in Georgia, it literally said that the CPC
program, which gives $2 million annually to CPCs, would only go
to places that their stated purpose was to dissuade people from
having abortions. So, yes, CPC centers have gotten better over
time as far as providing some services, but it is still the
case that they literally only exist just to talk people out of
having abortions that they know they want to have, that they
want to have.
I had an abortion 20 years ago, actually lived in Florida
when that happened. It is a decision I don't regret. And I
think it is really important that when people know that they
want to have an abortion, that they be able to get that care
without being distracted, and, as Ms. Graves mentioned before,
basically running out the clock, which will make it difficult
for them to get the care that they know that they already want.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's times has expired.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Madam Chair, that is why I am an
original cosponsor of your bill, the Stop Anti-Abortion
Disinformation Act, that crackdown on false advertising related
to abortion services. And the last thing that pregnant people
need now are additional forces actively trying to suppress
their right to care. I yield back the balance of my time and
thank you for this important hearing.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you, and the gentleman from
California, Vice Chair Gomez, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, before I start on
my more formal remarks, I want to kind of address, I was here
for the opening statements by the ranking member, and he made
some comments that the Democrats are trying to destroy
democratic institutions, and that we don't respect process. And
this is coming from the same side of the aisle when it came to
January 6th, that they didn't speak up. They didn't vote to
impeach the former President. They haven't held him
accountable. They didn't even want to put anybody on the
January 6 commission. This is the same group of folks, right,
that don't believe in the institution. They didn't believe in
the peaceful transfer of power. Even one person on the other
side of the aisle on this committee said it was a normal
tourist visit.
As my colleagues and I were laying on the floor on the
gallery, with cops above us with guns drawn, we were still
sitting there. But, no, they don't want to call out that
violence that almost overthrew our democracy in our country.
They are OK with that, and they wanted to provide a different
set of electors, but they are OK with that. So, I think it is
very disingenuous when they say that we are the ones that don't
respect our institutions. We respect our institutions, but we
also recognize that our institutions and the individuals that
are placed there have a responsibility to live up to the
Constitution, not to their political party.
They also make a claim that it is about life and freedom.
Well, these are the same folks that if you really kind of dig
down, it is not about life or freedom. It is about control,
right, because if it was about life, they would take a look at
a lot of their own states, right? What about their states?
Well, if you really look at it, the maternal mortality rate is
highest in top 10 states: Louisiana, Georgia, Indiana, New
Jersey, Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, Texas, South Carolina, and
Arizona. We have 1 blue state out of 10. But then when they get
a chance to support life of mothers, they always vote no. When
they had a chance to increase the child tax credit that reduced
poverty from 40 to 60 percent in this country that brought kids
out of poverty, they voted no. When it comes to paid family
leave, they vote no. When it comes to expanding the ACA, they
vote no.
And if you look at the same states that are pulling back on
abortion rights and the right to privacy--that is what it is
really about, the right to control your own body--are the same
12 states, roughly, that also refused to expand the Affordable
Care Act, Medicaid. So, for them, they are claiming it is about
life. No, it is not about life. It is about controlling women,
LGBTQ individuals. It is about controlling individuals that
don't look like them, don't agree with them, and don't have the
same values as them. That is what it is about. And when they
say, well, you are using fear to mobilize the public, it is not
fear, it is a fact. Thomas said in future cases the Court
should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, basically
dealing with contraception, same-sex relationship, and same-sex
marriage.
If they kept the majority in the House and the Senate, they
will pass laws that will outlaw abortion rights throughout this
country. No doubt about it. It is not fear. It is fact, and
this is what we are dealing with. And the people that are most
likely to suffer are Black, brown, indigenous, LGBTQ
individuals, and undocumented individuals throughout the
country.
So, for the panel, what do you say when these, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, claim that they are
pro-life, to Ms. Goss?
Ms. Goss Graves. You know, I think there are a lot of
things you could do in support of life: the gun reforms that
would actually make it safe for my children to be in school,
that is in support of life, paid leave, doing things to
increase the maternal outcomes. There is a long agenda. Many of
it was in Build Back Better, which not many of the folks in
this room I don't think supported. So, there are a lot of
things that would be in support of the well-being and security
of all people in this country that don't seem to be their
agenda.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, may I respond to what the gentleman
just said about my opening remarks?
Chairwoman Maloney. We will give you time at the end. We
are almost at the end. Let us get through the panelists. There
are members that are still waiting all day to ask their
questions.
The gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you
to the panel and everybody who is stuck with it. So, I will get
right to the questions because I know we are anxious to wrap up
this hearing.
I want to talk about the disability community and how
disproportionately they are affected. Those impacted include a
lot of people like Robin Wilson-Beattie, who now lives in the
Bay Area, not far from my district, and made the difficult
decision to terminate a pregnancy in 2007. Had she not
terminated a pregnancy, complications would have endangered her
ability to care for her young son. The stigma and draconian
laws that Robin faced in Georgia were traumatizing. And efforts
for anti-abortion extremists will further harm people like
Robin who face the tough and deeply personal decisions about
their reproductive healthcare. Further, because many people who
live with disabilities rely on Medicaid for their essential
healthcare needs, state and Federal restrictions of Medicaid
coverage of abortion are particularly harmful to this
community.
Ms. McMorrow, how can those of us working to expand
healthcare access ensure that people living with disabilities
are not overlooked as they currently fear they will be?
Ms. McMorrow. Thank you Congressman. I really appreciate
the question because, as I said in my opening remarks, it is
really challenging for many people to get pregnant and to stay
pregnant safely, and that is especially true for those in the
disability community. And it ultimately comes down to this is a
healthcare decision between an individual, and a family, and
their medical provider. Every single situation is different.
Right now, the way that Michigan's 1931 law is written, and our
attorney general has mentioned this, there is an exception for
imminent danger of death to a mother, but that is not defined.
So, it goes back to that issue. Is it 50 percent? Is it 80
percent? Is it 20 percent?
It doesn't factor in mental health. It doesn't factor in
the issue you brought up of putting at risk either the ability
to conceive again or to care for existing family. So
ultimately, I think all of us, in the most compassionate way,
need to work as hard as possible to ensure that this care is
safe and accessible and is a decision that medical providers
can make without arbitrary hurdles with their patients.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Let me followup with that. This population,
having been involved with them for many years, they have so
many challenges. California, where I live, since Pat Brown was
Governor, really has been at the forefront of mainstreaming
people with disabilities. They are very sophisticated about
dealing with the healthcare system, both medical and behavioral
health and their families and support groups, but this is just
one more thing. Could you respond to that?
Ms. McMorrow. It is. And it just comes down to we have
talked a lot about the Constitution and everybody's
constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. We have to consider the additional hurdles and
challenges for those in the disability community and respond in
kind by ensuring that our laws do not add additional hurdles to
ensure that everybody has that right to life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Just to followup with it, both you and Ms.
Lopez, on the behavioral health implications. For communities
that are unique, like the disabled community, people who are
disproportionately lower income, people of color living in
stress and trauma, again, one more thing, but a significant
life-transforming event for multiple people in this decision
process so they can get the behavioral health they need, while
they are being tugged by the rest of society in this political
atmosphere.
Ms. McMorrow. Absolutely. I am concerned. You know, it
brings up a broad conversation of how do we expand access to
healthcare, and mental healthcare, and wraparound supports so
that everybody has the fundamental right to decide if and when
to become pregnant, knowing that that impacts the family as
well, and that families take many different forms.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Ms. Lopez, do you have any observations,
comments?
Ms. Lopez. I am just grateful to lift up the disability
community, especially rural folks, LGBTQ folks, and Black and
indigenous people of color. These are all the communities that
are already disproportionately impacted by abortion bans and
restrictions. And what I have seen in helping people is that
over the last few years as I have been working in abortion
funds, is that people are so desperate, they will do anything
they can to get this care, whether that is, you know, give up
their rent money or, like, shuffle around to make sure they
have child care. These are things that are dire, and they all
play into if and when abortion is accessible.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Hawley, please
state for the record, when an ectopic pregnancy ruptures, what
are the chances that it can be carried to term?
Ms. Hawley. My understanding is that when an ectopic
pregnancy ruptures, it is a life-threatening condition. That is
why the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion.
Ms. Pressley. I am sorry, reclaiming my time here. Again,
could you just answer the question? When an ectopic pregnancy
ruptures, what are the chances that it can be safely carried to
term? And you know what, just to make this even clearer, I am
looking for a number between zero to 100. Can you give me a
percentage?
Ms. Hawley. Sure. I believe zero ectopic pregnancies, even
those that do not rupture, have a chance of successfully being
carried to term. That is why the treatment for them is not an
abortion.
Ms. Pressley. Reclaiming my time. It seems that there is a
deficit in your understanding of reproductive health. In fact,
I want the record to reflect that according to the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, treatment for
ectopic pregnancy requires ending a non-viable pregnancy. Now,
let us turn----
Ms. Hawley. With respect, ma'am, that is not an abortion.
Ms. Pressley. This is my time. I asked you the question,
you answered, and I am now providing you with the accurate
information from medical experts. My question was, when an
ectopic pregnancy ruptures, what are the chances it can be
safely carried to term. The answer is zero percent.
Ms. Hawley. I answered that correct, ma'am.
Ms. Pressley. Further, when it comes to one's accurate
understanding of reproductive health and abortion care with an
ectopic pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists says, ``Treatment for ectopic pregnancy requires
ending a non-viable pregnancy.'' This is my time.
Ms. Hawley. That is not----
Ms. Pressley. So now I am going to turn to the real
experts----
Ms. Hawley. That is not an abortion because it does not
have the intent to end the life of a child.
Ms. Pressley. Reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, I am
now going to turn over to the real experts. So, despite the
active misinformation campaign that is endangering the lives of
pregnant people, including much of the testimony heard here
today, endangering the lives of pregnant people, their
families, and entire communities, this hearing is an
opportunity for quality public health education that
prioritizes equity and justice in reproductive healthcare.
Representative Shannon, I would like to ask you about
medication abortion. Now, this is a topic that many are hearing
about for the first time in the news. Since first being
approved by the FDA more than 20 years ago, medication abortion
is now the most common form of abortion healthcare. It is
discreet, incredibly safe, and highly effective. In my home
state, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, nearly half of
pregnancies are terminated by medication abortion. Last year,
Chair Maloney and I led calls to improve access to the
medication abortion drugs, mifepristone, and end arbitrary and
burdensome restrictions that experts agreed were medically
unnecessary. And thankfully, the FDA revised its regulations so
that patients can receive what many of us refer to as ``mife''
by mail.
Representative Shannon, what does having access to
medication abortion by mail mean for people in your state,
particularly people of color?
Ms. Shannon. Yes, thank you. So, as I mentioned before,
most of our state, the resources are located in Atlanta, and so
around the state, a lot of folks don't have access to
providers. So being able to have access to medication abortion
means that people can get access to care after they have made
their decision, regardless of what zip code they live in. And
we all know that forcing someone to carry a pregnancy, an
unwanted pregnancy, leads to poor health outcomes, so having
access to medication abortion is the right thing to do.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Ms. Lopez, based on your
experience working to connect pregnant people in Texas with
abortion care, would increased government support to expand
abortion access, including medication abortion, benefit the
clients that you work with?
Ms. Lopez. Absolutely, especially now that we have seen
most clinics in Texas shutter, and especially because of H.B.
2, which was passed in 2013.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Ms. Lopez. That shuttered the rest, over half the clinics
in Texas.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you very much. And I think the point
here is that pregnant people in multiple states have had
emergency surgery delayed and their lives put at risk, while
lawyers and doctors debate care due to confusion caused by the
Republicans and this far-right Supreme Court. This is a matter
of life and death. Thank you.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, I would request on behalf of our
side of the aisle that in the future, our membership treat our
witnesses with a little more respect and not be as hostile and
confrontational. I believe that we have got a witness here
today that has been very honest and very polite in trying to
answer the questions, and I just feel like the last questions
were a little over the line by Ms. Pressley. I wanted to say
that for the record, very disappointing.
Ms. Pressley. Well----
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Sarbanes, you are now recognized.
Mr. Sarbanes?
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you
to the panelists. You have been here for a long time, but your
testimony has been of great consequence. So, we thank you for
taking the time, and those joining remotely as well.
In the wake of the Dobbs decision, as we know, many states
already have bans on abortion in place. And we know that
conservatives around the country are pushing policies to
further limit women's fundamental rights in many, many states.
Given this reality, it is all the more essential for
individuals in other states to redouble their efforts to
protect and expand abortion access, in a sense, to be an anchor
in the midst of this storm.
In my home state of Maryland, which, thankfully, is one
where access to abortion is still protected, a new law allows
certain non-physician practitioners with qualified training to
provide abortions. Other states such as Delaware, Washington,
Connecticut, have also recently taken steps to strengthen
access to abortion care. But even when state legislatures pass
laws protecting abortion care, we must continue to be vigilant.
In Maryland, we have seen, for example, where the Governor
recently refused to release funds that were appropriated to
support portions of the state's new abortion access law.
Ms. Goss Graves, I wanted to ask you to kind of speak to
the emerging two Americas that we are seeing now, and in this
case, to why it is critical that there be actions to expand
abortion access in places like Maryland and other states where
the right is protected. And just speak a little bit to what you
see as that dynamic because we are headed in the near term
toward that reality and understanding how we manage it I think
is going to be extremely important.
Ms. Goss Graves. You know, a little over two weeks ago, we
woke up to a reality that had about half the country would be
hurling into a place where you weren't free to decide whether
you were going to be pregnant. And what that means is that the
1 in 4 people, the 1 in 4 women in this country who get
abortion care are going to have to figure out how to do that
safely and without criminal penalties. Some will be traveling
to other parts of the country. Some will be seeking medication
abortion and seeking to self-manage. All of them are going to
be doing it at a time of legal and health chaos.
So, for states that have an opportunity to expand access,
that is exactly what they should be doing: protecting
providers, patients, and anyone who is trying to help them. And
in those states where they are finding that they are suddenly
waking up in a place that is hostile, I just want to say that I
see you, and there are people who are fighting for you. The
idea that we can stand as a Nation with half more free than the
other is not one that we will be able to stand very long. I
believe we are hurling toward a time that feels very unsafe.
Mr. Sarbanes. And I think you are right to describe a kind
of situation of chaos across the country. We are seeing that
with each passing day, and I think it is contributing to a
heightened sense of kind of instability generally in the
country. This is the consequence of a decision like Dobbs. You
know, Maryland is one of the states that has an opportunity to
be a safe haven for women who live in other states where these
restrictions and bans are in place. But we have got to do what
we can to expand and model what the kind of support and
capacity can look like.
I also think there is an opportunity in states like
Maryland to gather data in a responsible way that can inform
the more broader conversation across the country because we
have had some debates here today over myths and disinformation
around this topic. And being able to gather data in a way that
has integrity to it and diligence to it, I think, will be
important, and states like Maryland, I think, can play a role
in that effort.
So, thank you all again for your testimony today. The
reality is that the Democrats on this committee believe that a
woman should make her own healthcare decisions, and,
unfortunately, it seems that the Republicans that we serve with
here have a different view. They want to take that agency away.
We must, we will continue to do all we can to protect abortion
access and ensure that all Americans, no matter where they
live, can exercise their reproductive freedom. Every American,
and we know that it is the great majority of Americans, must
raise their voices in this critical moment. With that, I yield
back my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
Before we close, I want to offer the ranking member an
opportunity to offer any closing remarks that he may have, and
Ranking Member Comer, you are now recognized.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, I want to
thank our witnesses for being here today. Ms. Hawley, I want to
publicly apologize for Ms. Pressley. I feel like that was
unnecessary, her tone. I appreciate your honesty and all the
witnesses' willingness to voluntarily testify today.
A couple of things, Madam Chair, that I wanted to point out
that I disagreed with statements. Ms. Wasserman Schultz
continue to disparage crisis pregnancy centers. I mean, they
are providing a valuable service all over America, and she
mentioned the word ``fake pregnancy centers.'' If there are any
fake pregnancy centers that are unlicensed, then she should
report them to the authorities because it is not allowed to
have in any state a pregnancy center that is not properly
licensed. Mr. Gomez referred to my opening statement, and I
would like to remind Mr. Gomez that unlike Nancy Pelosi, I
never voted to object an Electoral College confirmation vote. I
was also on the floor on January 6, and I have always condemned
the violence that occurred on that day, so I don't know where
he was referencing that with respect to me.
I am going to conclude by reminding everyone on this
committee what is the purpose of this committee is. The purpose
of the House Oversight Committee is to identify waste, fraud,
abuse, and mismanagement in the Federal Government. We are
talking about a Supreme Court case here, something that we
honestly have zero jurisdiction over.
This hearing, Madam Chair, with all due respect, was a
political hearing, in my opinion, to try to fire up the
demoralized far left-wing of the Democrat Party because of
disparaging poll numbers with the President and the party. I
hope that in the future, we can focus on hearings that actually
identify the core mission of this committee, and that is to try
to provide oversight for this Biden administration and their
many policies, like their energy policy, their border control
policy that are failing, and try to identify wasteful spending
that we can hopefully reverse and try to tame inflation.
So again, Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to a
closing statement, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. I thank all the witnesses for an
incredible testimony. And I first of all want to say that Ms.
Pressley was perfectly within her right to reclaim her time.
That is the way the body works. You have your time, the time
belongs to the member, and the member can reclaim their time,
and behaved fully within her rights as a member of this
committee. I want to compliment her also for her foresight of
beginning an investigation with me on mifepristone well over a
year and a half ago, trying to remove the restrictions that the
FDA had placed on it, to have access to it, which resulted in
the ability now to mail it into areas of the country. That was
extraordinary work, and I want to publicly thank her for this.
And it is absolutely within the realm of the Oversight
Committee to look at the rights of half the population of our
country. And this devastating decision is taking away a
fundamental right that we felt was settled law with 50 years of
precedent, where Supreme Court justices, they testified before
the Senate saying they would respect precedent. So, this is a
shocking devastating opinion, and I would say that we heard
testimony today from many of our panelists of the dire threat
to the health of people.
I think we heard that they said that abortions are going to
occur. The question is, are they going to be legal and safe?
Are they going to be illegal and increase the deaths of women?
This is literally life and death to many women. We have heard
that over and over again, and we all know that. We have had
hearings on the high incidence of death for particularly
African American women with the birth of their children, eight
times more likely in my great city of New York than the
national average. That is a huge problem, so it is not unusual
to look at the health challenges that Americans face.
And I would say that most women and likeminded men in this
country would be grateful for the testimony, the knowledge, and
the experience that they had of listening to our panelists. And
I would say that today, we heard testimony about the chaos and
confusion, very beautifully explained by Ms. Graves, caused by
the Supreme Court's extreme decision to eliminate Americans'
constitutional right to an abortion.
To all of our witnesses who shared their expertise and
personal stories of abortion, I want to thank you. And many did
not share their stories, but I know their stories, and it is
very brave to come forward and tell them. Today's hearing makes
clear that the loss of abortion rights is devastating,
absolutely devastating for women across the country, for
particularly people of color, people with low incomes, and
others who already face barriers to their healthcare.
Anyone trying to downplay the damage from the Supreme
Court's decision is flat out lying, and here are the facts. We
heard them today. Abortion is now illegal in 16 states, with
more on the way. More than 33 million women are at risk of
losing abortion rights in these states. That is half of the
women that are of a reproductive age. Providers are scared to
offer essential reproductive healthcare. We could not even get
a provider to come in. They were afraid to come in. They felt
they would be hurt in some way if they publicly talked about
their work. And this is in America, and people are being denied
care for miscarriages and other emergencies because of these
extreme state laws. Many miscarriages that we heard today are
very health threatening, and sometimes you can't reach your
doctor, sometimes you can't even get in the hospital, and it is
going to cause the death of more women in this country.
And Republicans are not done. They are simply not done with
taking away our rights. Next, they want to pass a national
abortion ban. Major leaders of the party have said that. Just
ask the Republican members of this committee who are co-
sponsoring a bill to make performing an abortion a crime
punishable by five years in Federal prison.
I asked at the beginning of this hearing if this is the
America we want to live in. We heard today a resounding ``no.''
The vast majority of Americans support abortion rights and want
to make their own decisions about their own bodies. This is why
Democrats are fighting to protect abortion rights. We feel we
are fighting for democracy itself. If you can't make decisions
about your own body, and including your reproductive health, it
is not a democracy. It is not a free society. Here in the
House, we are taking up legislation to enshrine abortion rights
in Federal law, and I urge the Senate to act as well.
President Biden has also taken decisive action. He issued
an executive order to protect reproductive care, including
access to medication abortion and to protect the privacy and
security of patients and providers. The administration is also
acting to ensure access to contraception. And I have introduced
a bill with many members of this committee that would prevent
pharmacies from refusing to dispense contraception based on
their personal beliefs.
As we have heard today, the fight for reproductive rights
is also taking place in cities and states all over our country,
and I am proud to stand with my Democratic colleagues in that
fight. And I am especially proud that this committee has led
the way in expanding access to medication abortion and
contraception. This is a fight we will never, ever, ever give
up.
Before I close, I want to enter into the record letters,
statements from NARAL, Pro-Choice America, Physicians for
Reproductive Health, the American Academy of Family Physicians,
and Professor Carrie Baker of Smith College, regarding the
urgent need to protect abortion access.
Chairwoman Maloney. I would like to just say in closing, I
want to thank all of our panelists for their remarks. I
apologize that we had a five-minute time limit. Many of you had
much more you wanted to say. You can put that into the official
record. And I want to commend my colleagues, all of them, for
participating in this very, very important conversation.
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 you are able.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]