[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     THE TEXAS ABORTION BAN AND ITS
             DEVASTATING IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES AND FAMILIES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                       THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2021
                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-45
                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                              ___________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
48-243                    WASHINGTON : 2022                 
               
                       
                       
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
    Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri

       PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
              CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director 
                                 ------                                
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                       Thursday, November 4, 2021

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     2
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Ohio...............................     4

                               WITNESSES

Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, OB/GYN; Board Member, Physicians for 
  Reproductive Health; Board Member, Texas Equal Access Fund
  Oral Testimony.................................................     7
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     9
Dr. Khiara Bridges, Professor of Law, University of California, 
  Berkeley School of Law
  Oral Testimony.................................................    12
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    14
Ms. Catherine Glenn Foster, President & CEO, Americans United for 
  Life
  Oral Testimony.................................................    26
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    28
Ms. Stephanie Loraine Pineiro, Co-Executive Director, Florida 
  Access Network
  Oral Testimony.................................................    40
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    43

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for the 
  record
  An article entitled, ``Margaret Sanger founded Planned 
    Parenthood on racism,'' The Washington Times.................    68
  An article entitled, ``Margaret Sanger's racist legacy lives on 
    at Planned Parenthood,'' Washington Examiner.................    71
  An article entitled, ``Remove statues of Margaret Sanger, 
    Planned Parenthood founder tied to eugenics and racism,'' USA 
    Today........................................................    74
An article entitled, ``Americans Still Oppose Overturning Roe v. 
  Wade,'' Gallup, submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  Texas, for the record..........................................    92
Materials submitted by the Honorable Burgess Owens, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Utah, for the 
  record
  An amici curiae for United States of America v. State of Texas, 
    et al........................................................   102
  An article entitled, ``OPINION: Planned Parenthood Is The 
    Greatest Threat To Black Lives In America,'' Daily Wire......   130
A statement from the Texas House Women's Health Caucus, submitted 
  by the Honorable Veronica Escobar, a Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for the record..........   144
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for 
  the record
  An article entitled, ``These Texas women got abortions from a 
    California doctor after the state's ban. Here are their 
    stories,'' San Francisco Chronicle...........................   162
  An article entitled, ``Texas' Abortion Law Could Worsen the 
    State's Maternal Mortality Rate,'' Time......................   172
  An article entitled, ``Texas abortion: Doctor sued in first 
    known challenges of new law,'' BBC News......................   179
  An article entitled, `` `My body is not their property': Texas 
    woman's journey across state lines for an abortion,'' ABC 
    News.........................................................   182
  An article entitled, ``Opinion | Why I violated Texas's extreme 
    abortion ban,'' Washington Post..............................   192

                                APPENDIX

Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary, for the record
  A report entitled, ``ADVANCING BIRTH JUSTICE: Community-Based 
    Doula Models as a Standard of Care for Ending Racial 
    Disparities,'' Ancient Song Doula Services, Village Birth 
    International, Every Mother Counts...........................   200
  An article entitled, ``Racial Disparities in Maternal 
    Mortality,'' New York University Law Review..................   233
  An article entitled, ``How False Narratives of Margaret Sanger 
    Are Being Used to Shame Black Women,'' Rewire News Group.....   323
  A letter submitted by the National Asian Pacific American 
    Women's Forum................................................   335
  A statement submitted by NARAL Pro-Choice America..............   337
  A statement submitted by Planned Parenthood Federation of 
    America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund...................   341
  A statement submitted by the Center for Reproductive Rights....   346
An excerpt from the statement of the Honorable Virginia Foxx, a 
  Member of Congress from the State of North Carolina, House 
  Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing, submitted by the 
  Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for the record............   358
A report entitled, ``The Judicial Waiver Process in Florida 
  Courts,'' If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, 
  submitted by Ms. Stephanie Loraine Pineiro, Co-Executive 
  Director, Florida Access Network, for the record...............   362

 
                     THE TEXAS ABORTION BAN AND ITS
             DEVASTATING IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES AND FAMILIES

                              ----------                              


                       Thursday, November 4, 2021

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:09 p.m., in Room 
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair 
of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Nadler, Jackson Lee, 
Johnson of Georgia, Bass, Jeffries, Cicilline, Raskin, Jayapal, 
Demings, Scanlon, Garcia, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Escobar, Ross, 
Bush, Jordan, Chabot, Gohmert, Issa, Buck, Johnson of 
Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, Bishop, 
Fischbach, Spartz, Bentz, and Owens.
    Staff present: Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief 
Counsel; Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; David Greengrass, 
Senior Counsel; John Doty, Senior Advisor; Moh Sharma, Director 
of Member Services and Outreach & Policy Advisor; Jordan 
Dashow, Professional Staff Member; Cierra Fontenot, Chief 
Clerk; John Williams, Parliamentarian and Senior Counsel; 
Merrick Nelson, Digital Director; Kayla Hamedi, Deputy 
Communications Director; James Park, Chief Counsel for 
Constitution; Will Emmons, Professional Staff Member/
Legislative Aide for Constitution; Matt Morgan, Counsel for 
Constitution; Ella Yates, Minority Member Services Director; 
Betsy Ferguson, Minority Senior Counsel; Caroline Nabity, 
Minority Counsel; Elliott Walden, Minority Counsel; Andrea 
Woodard, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Kiley 
Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
    Chair Nadler. The House Committee on the Judiciary will 
come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 
declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
    Before we begin, I want to thank the Members and the 
Witnesses for their patience in delaying the start of the 
hearing. We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on the 
Texas abortion ban and its devastating impact on communities 
and families.
    Before we begin, I would like to remind Members that we 
have established an email address and distribution list 
dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, or other written 
materials that Members might want to offer as part of our 
hearing today. If you would like to submit materials, please 
send them to the email address that has been previously 
distributed to your offices and we will circulate the materials 
to Members and staff as quickly as possible.
    I would also remind Members that guidance from the Office 
of Attending Physicians states that face coverings are required 
in all meetings and in closed spaces such as the Committee 
hearing except when you are recognized to speak.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Sixty-five days, that is how long women in Texas have been 
effectively stripped of their constitutional right to abortion. 
Earlier this year, Texas enacted Senate Bill 8, or SB 8 which 
bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy before many people 
even know they are pregnant, thereby effectively blocking 
abortion access in the State entirely.
    Although the law is clearly unconstitutional, its unique 
structure which relies solely on a private enforcement or 
really bounty system, has thus far allowed it to evade judicial 
review on the merits. SB 8 offers up a bounty, a minimum of 
$10,000 in legal fees to those who successfully bring a suit 
under the law's private cause of action provision. This 
provision permits any individual, not only abortion providers, 
but anyone who ``aids or abets a violation of the abortion 
ban,'' a term so broad it would encompass practically any 
action from driving a patient to a clinic to merely offering 
personal advice.
    This law created a perfect storm in Texas, which already 
has some of the most restricted abortion laws in the country 
because of the way it was written and because of its 
enforcement method. The Supreme Court had two opportunities to 
stop the law from taking effect during pending legal challenges 
and twice it failed to do so. As a result, communities and 
families in Texas have been devastated and the ban has had 
ripple effects to the State, around the region, and the 
country.
    There is no question that SB 8 is blatantly 
unconstitutional, and that the Texas legislature intentionally 
ignore decades of legal precedent in enacting the law. To 
anyone who has been paying attention, this law did not appear 
out of nowhere. Rather, it is the result of a decade's long 
well-funded campaign by anti-abortion activists who steadily 
chip away at the right to abortion. These efforts have 
culminated in SB 8 and they have had one goal, to challenge and 
eventually to overturn the constitutionally-protected right to 
abortion.
    Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that 
right in Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld 
this critical constitutional right against legal challenge. 
Generations of Americans have come to rely upon the right to 
abortion to make the deeply personal decision about whether or 
when to have children. As the Supreme Court observed nearly 30 
years ago when it reaffirmed the right to abortion in Planned 
Parenthood v. Casey, the ability of women to participate 
equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been 
facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive 
lives.
    Access to safe, legal, and affordable abortion allows 
people to make choices about their own lives, when to start a 
new job, when to go back to school, and eventually when to 
start or grow a family. When the States chip away at, in the 
case of Texas newly banned abortion access, they are not just 
controlling women's bodies, they are controlling their lives. 
That, in fact, falls most directly on communities of color, 
low-income women, and vulnerable populations.
    This hearing occurs just days after the Supreme Court heard 
oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and the 
United States v. Texas. Legal challenges to SB 8 were brought 
up by abortion care providers and the Department of Justice, 
respectively.
    At the heart of these cases is the question of whether a 
State can effectively nullify the Constitution within its 
borders. SB 8 is designed to thwart a court's authority to 
review and potentially block a State law that prohibits the 
exercise of a constitutional right before it takes effect by 
delegating to private parties the authority to enforce the law. 
SB 8's bounty system, which is just as troubling as the six-
week ban is meant to enforce, is a deliberate and disturbing 
effort by the Texas legislature to evade judicial scrutiny long 
enough for a clearly unconstitutional law to take effect. It 
worked.
    SB 8's bounty system should be concerning to anyone who 
holds dear their constitutional rights. As Justice Kavanaugh, 
likely no fan of abortion rights, suggested during oral 
arguments on Monday, SB 8 could set a troubling precedent and a 
model for States to undermine not only abortion rights, but any 
constitutional right that a State legislature may disfavor, 
whether it be the right to free speech, the right to religious 
liberty, or the right to bear arms.
    In addition, this perverse bounty system is designed to 
have a chilling effect on the ability of people to access 
abortion. Pregnant people in Texas may now be reluctant to 
confide in one's trusted neighbors, coworkers, or friends, or 
to seek help from organizations and advocates if they have 
questions. Providers have expressed confusion and concern about 
how to advise their patients and where to seek care for 
pregnancy complications.
    The system was built to create fear, anxiety, and isolation 
for women and for providers in the State and in many ways, it 
has succeeded. SB 8 has not diminished the need for abortion in 
Texas or anywhere else in the country. People in Texas or 
particularly those in communities of color and low-income 
communities already face immense hurdles in accessing abortion.
    In the last 20 years, Texas has passed some of the most 
extreme anti-abortion laws in the country. Even before SB 8, 
women were required to make multiple appointments, receive 
medically unnecessary sonograms, and listen to false and 
misleading anti-abortion propaganda. Because Texas bars any 
insurance, public or private, from covering abortion care, 
women must pay for this entire process out of their pocket 
which can cost anywhere from $300-$1200.
    All of this assumes that they can even reach an abortion 
provider for more than 900,000 Texans of reproductive age live 
more than 150 miles from an abortion provider.
    None of these rules and restrictions are science based or 
medically necessary. They are designed to stop women from 
accessing abortion and to control women's lives, plain and 
simple. Texas is not alone in enacting these restrictions. 
States around the country have passed similar laws and many now 
stand poised to pass copycat SB 8 laws as well.
    These restrictions and laws make abortion almost completely 
inaccessible. They hit communities of color and low-income 
families the hardest. People who work hourly jobs, already have 
children, or lives miles away from an abortion provider face 
impossible decisions and often insurmountable obstacles in 
finding the time, money, and support to access care.
    These steps and decisions take time, pushing people later 
into their pregnancy and making care more difficult to access 
and more expensive.
    SB 8 has only exacerbated this situation. The need for 
abortion does not disappear in Texas under SB 8, even as the 
number of abortions provided in Texas has dropped by an 
estimated 50 percent. People are now seeking care out of State, 
traveling more miles, taking more days off of work, and 
spending much more money, all of this to get the care that they 
need, the care that they have a constitutional right to access, 
the care that is integral to their dignity and their 
fundamental freedom to live their lives on their own terms 
because ultimately the conversation about SB 8 and abortion 
rights is not a theoretical one.
    As we will hear today, SB 8 and similar abortion 
restrictions are impacting real women and real families every 
day. I will stand with these women and with their providers. I 
will not stop fighting to protect the right to abortion and the 
right of every American to live their lives with dignity.
    I thank our Witnesses for being here. I look forward to 
their testimony.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, life is 
precious. Every single life is precious and worthy of 
protection and that fundamental principle is what the Texas law 
is about. It is what the pro-life movement is about. That is 
not what Democrats are about in Congress. Democrats are now 
trying to abandon the Hyde Amendment, language that has been in 
our law, been in any appropriation measure for the last 45 
years which says that Federal tax money, the American people's 
tax money, will not be used to take the life of an unborn 
child. Even with the Hyde Amendment in place, over half a 
billion dollars in taxpayer funding is flowing to Planned 
Parenthood annually. Now, if the Hyde Amendment is actually 
repealed, as the Democrats seek to do, Planned Parenthood which 
does over 350,000 abortions per year will stand to get even 
more taxpayer money.
    For decades, Democrats respected that those who oppose 
abortion would not have their tax dollars used to fund it. Now, 
they don't. Even President Biden changed his position. He used 
to be for the Hyde Amendment language. Now, he is not. That is 
how radical the Democrats' position has become on unborn 
children.
    Republicans have numerous bills that would protect the 
unborn and it is our great hope that someday our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle would consider moving those pieces 
of legislation. Let's be honest. Democrats aren't here to have 
an honest debate about the sanctity of life or the role of 
government protecting unborn children. Instead, they are here 
to play politics with our institutions and advance a radical 
leftist agenda. Right now, right now, there are three pro-life 
cases, three life cases before the Supreme Court. In this very 
week, the same week that the Chair chose to convene this 
hearing, the court held oral arguments on two of those cases.
    Let's be clear. The Democrats have convened this hearing as 
a way to pressure the Supreme Court, to try to intimidate the 
Supreme Court. It is the play the Democrats use when the court 
was considering the census last Congress, sensationalize a 
legal question to delegitimize the court's role in interpreting 
the law.
    Today, their focus is on this pro-life law in the State of 
Texas. Last year, while the court heard oral arguments in the 
case regarding a Louisiana pro-life law, Senator Schumer stood 
in front of the Supreme Court and said this. ``I want to tell 
you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released 
the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what 
hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.''
    If that is not threatening, if that is not trying to 
intimidate, I don't know what is. He did that in front of the 
Supreme Court that day. In April, Chair Nadler and other 
Democrat Members of this Committee made good on Senator 
Schumer's threat. They introduced legislation that would add 
justices to the Supreme Court, four associate justices, not 
one, not two, not three, but four. Why might they want four new 
justices? Because four new justices appointed by President 
Biden is the golden number for getting to a liberal majority on 
the court.
    Even President Biden's Bipartisan Commission criticized 
this issue in their preliminary report last month. They wrote 
``Court expansion is likely to undermine, rather than enhance 
the Supreme Court's legitimacy and its role in the 
constitutional system. There are significant reasons to be 
skeptical that expansion would serve Democrat values.''
    That didn't deter congressional Democrats. After the 
release of the Commission's draft report, the Chair of this 
Committee and other Democrats promptly issued a statement 
condemning its finding, deriding President Trump, and doubling 
down on their plan. ``We must pass legislation to expand the 
Supreme Court.''
    Just yesterday, Congressman Jeffries doubled down on 
Democrats' attack on the court tweeting, ``The right wing 
majority on the Supreme Court is completely illegitimate.'' 
That statement doesn't make sense. I mean I think Mr. Gorsuch, 
Mr. Kavanaugh, Justice Coney Barrett, I think they were all 
nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate. I think 
they are as legitimate as you can get under our constitutional 
system. Somehow the Democrats view that as illegitimate simply 
because they are pro-life.
    Just so we are clear, the Chair of the House Judiciary 
Committee, the Committee charged by the American people with 
overseeing the judiciary and the Federal justice system in our 
country has introduced legislation to upset the balance of the 
Supreme Court all for political ends. This is just one branch 
of the government that Democrats don't control, and they can't 
stand it. The American people see through this all. The Texas 
law again is focused on the sanctity of life and protecting 
those who can't protect themselves. That's what the pro-life 
movement is about. Life is previous and let's protect those who 
can't protect themselves.
    Democrats in Congress are focusing on pressuring the court, 
intimidating the court, and packing the court, and the American 
people see it for what it is.
    I want to thank our Witnesses for being here, especially 
Ms. Foster and for her work with Americans United for Life.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection, all other--thank you, Mr. 
Jordan. Without objection, all other opening statements will be 
included in the record.
    I will now introduce today's Witnesses.
    Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi is a board-certified OB/GYN and 
complex family specialist in Texas and Oklahoma. She is also 
the Founder and Chief Medical Officer of Pegasus Health Justice 
Center and serves as a board member of Physicians for 
Reproductive Health. Dr. Moayedi received her undergraduate 
degree from the University of Texas at Austin and completed her 
medical training at Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine in 
Fort Worth. She trained as an OB/GYN resident at Texas Tech 
Health Science Center in El Paso and completed her fellowship 
training in Complex Family Planning at the University of Hawaii 
where she also received her Master of Public Health degree in 
Health Policy and Management.
    Khiara Bridges is Professor of Law at the University of 
California, Berkeley School of law. She previously taught at 
Boston University, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School, and 
Yale School--good trinity--and served as the Center for 
Reproductive Rights Fellow at Columbia Law School. She received 
her B.A. from Spelman College and earned both a J.D. and a 
Ph.D. in Anthropology from Columbia University.
    Catherine Glenn Foster is President and CEO of Americans 
United for Life, as well as a Senior Fellow in Legal Policy at 
the Charlotte Lozier Institute and a Fellow with the James 
Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding. 
Previously, she spent seven years as litigation counsel with 
the Alliance Defending Freedom. She then founded and managed a 
law practice and led Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA as 
Executive Director. Ms. Foster earned her B.A. from Barry 
College, a Master's degree in French from the University of 
South Florida, and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law 
Center.
    Stephanie Loraine Pineiro is Co-Executive Director of the 
Florida Access Network and abortion funds dedicated to 
challenging abortion stigma and dismantling barriers to 
abortion in Florida through financial and logistical support. 
She received her B.A. from the University of North Florida and 
a Masters of Social Work from the University of Central 
Florida.
    We welcome all our distinguished Witnesses and we thank 
them for participating today. I will begin by swearing in our 
Witnesses. I ask that our Witnesses in person, please rise and 
raise your right hand. I ask that our remote witnesses please 
turn on their audio and make sure I can see your face and your 
raised right hand while I administer the oath.
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief so help you God?
    Let the record show that the Witnesses have answered in the 
affirmative. Thank you and be seated.
    Please note that each of your written statements will be 
entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask 
that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you 
stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. 
When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one 
minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it 
signals your five minutes have expired.
    For our Witnesses appearing virtually, there is a timer on 
your screen to help you keep track of time.
    Dr. Moayedi, you may begin.

                 STATEMENT OF GHAZALEH MOAYEDI

    Dr. Moayedi. Good morning, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member 
Jordan and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is 
Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi and I use she/her pronouns. I am a Board-
Certified OB/GYN, the child of Iranian immigrants, a mom, a 
Texan, and a proud abortion provider. I serve on the Board of 
Physicians for Reproductive Health and the Texas Equal Access 
Fund.
    For over 60 days abortion care has been nearly inaccessible 
in my home State of Texas due to Senate Bill 8. Texans have 
been waiting for the courts, for Congress, for anyone to 
intervene and halt this unconstitutional abortion ban. I am 
here today because we are still waiting.
    As dangerous and as cruel as this law is, access in life-
saving abortion care has always been a challenge in Texas even 
before SB 8. Last month, when I testified to the House 
Oversight Committee on this very issue, I asked the Committee 
to spend a few minutes thinking about what it is like to be a 
person needing abortion care in Texas or in this country, to 
consider Marie, a 35-year-old, American citizen, Eighteen weeks 
pregnant, working a minimum wage job, and living in Dallas, 
Texas and seeking abortion care in August, prior to SB 8 even 
being enacted. She, like most people who have abortions, is 
already a parent and is resolute in her decision to end her 
pregnancy. Although Marie is confident and informed about her 
decision simply because she lives in Texas, Marie is forced to 
endure multiple harmful restrictions when accessing abortion 
care. Marie is forced to seek out this care at only one of two 
specialty clinics in Dallas, not from her regular healthcare 
provider because Texas has a law that requires abortion care 
after 16 weeks to be provided at an ASC, an ambulatory surgical 
center, a requirement that has been proven to be medically 
unnecessary and has nothing to improve the quality or safety of 
care.
    If Marie is able to make her appointment at one of our two 
ASCs in Dallas, she cannot have her abortion on the day of her 
appointment. Marie is forced, by Texas law, to make an 
appointment with a physician in advance of her procedure. As 
her physician, I am then compelled by the State to force Marie 
into a medically unnecessary ultrasound. I am compelled by the 
State to force Marie to look at and listen to the ultrasound. I 
am compelled by the State to force Marie to hear a description 
of the ultrasound. I am compelled by the State to force Marie 
to receive medically inaccurate, State-mandated scripts. After 
all this, I am still compelled by the State to force Marie to 
wait at least 24 hours to receive her desired healthcare.
    Now, if Marie were 16 instead of 35, her abortion care 
would be even further delayed by the need for parental consent 
or judicial bypass. If Marie were undocumented and living in El 
Paso instead of Dallas, she would be completely denied access 
to abortion because even before SB 8 a lack of abortion 
providers and the internal border checkpoints within Texas and 
New Mexico prevent Marie from accessing the next closest 
clinic.
    Now, that the Committee has heard how bad it was in Texas 
even before SB 8 I want to bring our story of Marie to today, 
right now. Today, Marie cannot get her abortion in Dallas and 
because of the influx of Texas patients, the next closest 
clinic in Oklahoma City where I also provide care has a week's 
long waiting list for an appointment. I should not be forced to 
travel hours and hours away from my home to care for patients 
or my neighbors who traveled hours and hours to see me. By the 
time Marie is able to schedule an appointment in Oklahoma she 
will be 22 weeks pregnant and unable to get her care because of 
Oklahoma's medically unnecessary abortion restrictions.
    So, now we are moving in concentric circles further and 
further away from her home, further and further away from hope. 
An abortion ban in Texas creates a ripple effect of injustice 
impacting all of us. The influx of Texas patients is straining 
our neighboring States, pushing Oklahomans to need abortion 
care out of their communities to other States, like Arkansas 
and Kansas. This is what SB 8 intends to do, deny people both 
in and out of Texas the ability to have abortions.
    Today abortion care is almost completely stopped in our 
State and the health and safety of all pregnant people in Texas 
is in jeopardy. We know chronic conditions can worsen in 
pregnancy, but not worsen enough to warrant an exception under 
this law.
    OB/GYNs and other prenatal healthcare providers are 
confused about how to comply and care for their patients. Right 
now, today, physicians and hospitals in Texas are delaying 
life-saving care for critically ill pregnant people because 
their pregnancy still have fetal cardiac activity. As a 
physician, I know firsthand that abortion saves lives. For the 
thousands of people I have cared for, abortion is a blessing. 
Abortion is an act of love. Abortion is freedom.
    I want to end by imploring this Committee to help our 
communities right now. We need Federal protection of abortion 
care and most of care, we need you to not forget about us, the 
people of Texas and in other heavily restricted States and our 
families and our communities.
    Thank you for hearing me today and holding this important 
hearing.
    [The statement of Dr. Moayedi follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you for your testimony. Professor 
Bridges, you are recognized.

                 STATEMENT OF KHIARA M. BRIDGES

    Dr. Bridges. Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, and 
Members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, thank you for 
the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Khiara 
Bridges, and I am a Professor of Law at the University of 
California, Berkeley, School of Law, where I teach Criminal 
Law, Family Law, and Reproductive Rights and Justice. I also 
serve as the Faculty Director of the Berkeley Center on 
Reproductive Rights and Justice.
    I am here today to explain how abortion restrictions and 
bans, like Texas Senate Bill 8, disproportionately impact 
pregnant people of color--especially Black women.
    For decades, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the central 
holding of Roe v. Wade. The court has affirmed that a person 
has a right ``to choose to have an abortion before viability 
and to obtain it without undue interference from the State.'' 
The Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey made clear that a 
``woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is 
the most central principle of Roe. It is a rule of law and a 
component of liberty we cannot renounce.'' Texas Senate Bill 8, 
SB 8, which bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, 
violates this central principle of Roe. The law constitutes a 
near-total ban on abortion banning abortion far before 
viability and before many people even know they are pregnant. 
Consequently, SB 8 is unconstitutional.
    Nevertheless, SB 8 is currently in effect and has been 
harming Texans in need of abortion care for over two months. 
This is solely because the law leaves enforcement of its 
prohibition on abortion to private citizens instead of State 
actors, a feature of the law that its architects hoped would 
permit the law to evade judicial review. The United States 
Supreme Court cited these ``complex and novel antecedent 
procedural questions'' as a reason for not enjoining the law. 
It is important to reiterate that the sole reason that SB 8 
contains these ``procedural questions'' is that its authors 
wanted to give receptive Federal courts the opportunity to 
leave the law in place.
    The Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court took advantage of 
the opportunity that SB 8's authors gave them. The Fifth 
Circuit and the Supreme Court left the law in place. In the 
words of Justice Sotomayor ``The State's gambit has worked.'' 
The law is in effect. For two months abortion providers in 
Texas have been unable to provide care to scores of patients 
who desperately need it.
    Because Texans seeking to exercise their constitutional 
rights to abortion must now travel outside of the State to do 
so, the burdens imposed by SB 8 are tremendous. The greatest 
harms have fallen and will continue to fall on the most 
marginalized people in Texas. Indeed, for the poorest people in 
Texas, these burdens are insurmountable.
    Crucially, because there is a close relationship between 
socio-economic status and race, Black people disproportionately 
living in poverty burdens to poor people constitute burdens to 
Black people. The result is that disproportionate numbers of 
Black people will be among those who are coerced to continue 
pregnancies and have children against their will to seek unsafe 
methods of abortion or to risk exposure to criminal prosecution 
for attempting to self-manage abortion.
    Further, Black people receive abortion care at higher rates 
than their counterparts of other races. This is true in large 
part because Black people experience unintended pregnancies at 
higher rates than their counterparts of other races. Because 
Black people rely on abortion care more frequently than their 
non-Black counterparts, various abortions like SB 8 inflicts 
greater harms on Black people than other races. Essentially, 
abortion restrictions do not have race-neutral effects.
    Feminists of color have long recognized the importance of 
ensuring that Black women and other Black people who can become 
pregnant are able to decide whether or not they will become 
parents. They have understood that there are forces that would 
coerce Black people into parenthood like the forces that 
wrongly assert that abortion is Black genocide. They have also 
understood that there are forces that would deny Black people 
parenthood like the forces that subjected tens of thousands of 
Black women to forced sterilizations from the 1950-1980s and 
beyond.
    Because feminists of color have realized that controlling 
Black people's reproduction has been a tool of racial 
oppression, they have identified Black people's ability to 
control their own reproduction as a tool for racial justice. 
Because of the ability to terminate a pregnancy enables Black 
people to control their reproduction, Feminists of color, like 
myself consider abortion access to be essential to racial 
justice. Thus, SB 8 and other regulations that make abortion 
inaccessible are tools of racial subordination. Thank you.
    [The statement of Dr. Bridges follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
              STATEMENT OF CATHERINE GLENN FOSTER

    Ms. Foster. Thank you. Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, 
and Members of the Committee, I speak today on behalf of the 
constitutional and human right to life.
    I speak today on behalf of Texas and every community's 
right to protect our most vulnerable brothers and sisters--
White, Black, indigenous, and all people--from extermination.
    Let me tell you what the others here on today's panel 
won't. It's not our many degrees, our Master's degrees, juris 
doctorates, and medical degrees, that distinguish us. These are 
all fine accomplishments. None of them, ultimately, matter.
    What matters is what we share, our common humanity, and 
what is at stake is the same, our humanity. I have committed my 
life to advocating for America's common interest in life and I 
am committed to opposing the special interests that, 
tragically, advance killing as a public policy solution.
    If you asked most Americans on the street and told them 
that very serious people were convening hearings to call for 
more abortions to take place, they'd rightly be speechless.
    Yet, that is what is happening here today. We're hearing 
incredible stories, testimony--marketing, really--for Texas, 
for America to embrace more abortions.
    What's true about abortion is this:

        (1)  Abortion is the violent tearing apart of helpless 
        children, limb from limb.
        (2)  Abortion is the wounding and scarring of women and 
        families for the benefit of multibillion-dollar financial 
        interests.
        (3)  Abortion is a cancer upon America. Abortion must end.

    I keep hearing the word devastating today--it's in the name 
of today's hearing--and pro-abortion activists are repeating it 
ad nauseam. Devastating.
    You know what's devastating? Cancer and natural disasters. 
Sixty-two million dead babies. That is what is devastating. 
Sixty-two million dead babies, killed in history's first for-
profit corporate sponsored genocide.
    It's time for us to move on. As a constitutional attorney, 
I implore the Supreme Court and every Federal and State 
lawmaker to act to restore the human right to life.
    We're hearing a lot about Texas, but all this got its start 
because seven men on the U.S. Supreme Court decided to do a 
terrible thing, to use Roe to nullify the democratic consensus 
against abortion and impose abortion violence upon our people.
    The American people have never accepted the injustice of 
abortion culture. Americans United For Life advocates for the 
human right to life in culture, law, and policy.
    We have been fighting since 1971 from the beginning of the 
abortion wars for those who govern in our Executive, 
Congressional, and Judicial branches to simply to their jobs 
and to protect human life.
    There is nothing more alien to America's constitutional way 
of life than the toleration of abortion and its imposition on 
women who deserve better choices.
    Since Texas Heartbeat Act went into effect earlier this 
year, there are now literally thousands of human persons alive 
and thousands of mothers, fathers, families, and communities 
who will have the joyful chance at building a life together.
    A world with fewer abortions is a good world, a future with 
more Americans is a good future, and families and communities 
who are offered hope rather than sorrow are powerful Witnesses 
to the importance of laws that serve justice and the good of 
all persons.
    I am here to remind you of a truth that you already know. A 
world with fewer abortions is a good world, a better world.
    In a few years, the children who are alive today, thanks to 
Texas Heartbeat Act, will be old enough to understand that you 
think that it is devastating that they are alive, and their 
parents can hear you now, by the way.
    I celebrate them and I celebrate every heartbeat protected 
and every life saved. We should be asking ourselves how we can 
support mothers and fathers from the moment of conception, as 
Texas does, in every city and in every county through pregnancy 
resource centers and alternatives, and we should be asking how 
America can transcend the abortion debate, how America can 
enact and embrace robust national family policies that support 
the growth and the thriving of every life, family, and 
community.
    We all have something priceless to contribute. We must 
first be allowed to live. We can restore America's greatness by 
choosing to live joyfully together.
    We must offer one another our best choices rather than our 
worst and then we can embrace what comes when abortion is no 
more--a lifetime of joyful possibilities.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Foster follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Ms. Pineiro, you are recognized.

             STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE LORAINE PINEIRO

    Ms. Pineiro. Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. 
Thank you for the generous invitation to speak to you about the 
State of abortion access in Florida.
    My name is Stephanie Loraine Pineiro and I work as the Co-
Executive Director of the Abortion Fund, Florida Access 
Network.
    I'm a storyteller with We Testify, a Puerto Rican poderosa, 
a survivor of sexual assault, [speaking foreign language], a 
bisexual woman who has had two abortions and as a social worker 
with a Master's degree from the University of Central Florida.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Yes? Oh. I'm sorry, Ms. Pineiro.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. Am I on now?
    Chair Nadler. The clerk will restart the clock and, Ms. 
Pineiro, you may start again.
    Ms. Pineiro. Thank you.
    Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 
generous invitation to speak to you about the State of abortion 
access in Florida.
    My name is Stephanie Loraine Pineiro and I work as the Co-
Executive Director of the Abortion Fund, Florida Access 
Network. I'm a storyteller with We Testify, a Puerto Rican 
poderosa, a survivor of sexual assault, [speaking foreign 
language], a bisexual woman who has had two abortions and a 
social worker with a Master's degree from the University of 
Central Florida.
    As proud as I am to testify today, I am dismayed that I'm 
here to explain why we must continue to defend our 
constitutionally-protected right to abortion.
    As a result of the Supreme Court's inaction, SB 8 was 
allowed to go into effect, adding yet another burden for people 
who want abortions. This emboldened States like my home State 
of Florida, who wasted no time in introducing an almost 
identical six-week ban.
    I am worried about our future and what it means for people 
who need abortions today, tomorrow, and for years to come. I 
know what it is like to want an abortion only to be tripped up 
by medically unnecessary restrictions and financial barriers.
    When I was a teenager, I became pregnant twice, once as a 
result of a rape, and again during a relationship when I was 17 
years old. Both times I knew I wanted an abortion.
    After my rape, I felt ashamed, and I blamed myself. I know 
now that being raped was not my fault, and wanting an abortion 
is nothing to be ashamed of regardless of how someone becomes 
pregnant.
    Before my second abortion when I was 16, my Catholic 
pediatrician refused to prescribe me birth control against my 
request. A year later, when my then boyfriend tried to purchase 
Plan B, the pharmacist refused to sell it.
    After I was denied Plan B, I spent weeks waiting for my 
period and searching the internet for clues about how I could 
self-manage my own abortion. I was afraid of violence 
escalating in my already unsteady home and about what could 
happen if I told my very strict parents that I needed another 
abortion.
    Like 72 million Americans, my family was enrolled in 
Medicaid. Because of the Hyde Amendment, my abortions were not 
eligible for coverage. When I had my abortions, I was a high 
school student working as a waitress and helping my family 
during the recession, earning $2.17 an hour as my base pay, 
which is still the Federal minimum wage for tipped restaurant 
workers.
    I had to pick up extra shifts just to afford the $450 for 
my appointment. I shouldn't have been forced to choose 
supporting my family--between supporting my family and paying 
for my abortion.
    Because Florida has a parental involvement law, I had to 
skip class to go to court and ask a judge, a complete stranger, 
for permission to end my pregnancy through a process called 
judicial bypass. With the help of my lawyer, I presented myself 
in a five-page essay as mature enough not to parent a child 
when I didn't want to.
    Between the appointments with my attorney, the whole ordeal 
took several weeks and delayed my abortion even more. A decade 
after my experience, I co-authored a groundbreaking report 
entitled, ``The Judicial Waiver Process in Florida Courts,'' 
If/When/How, Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, which analyzed 
whether Florida courts could offer clear and unbiased 
information about the judicial bypass process.
    We found that over half of Florida's 67 counties could 
offer little or no information about the process, and one 
county clerk even tried to talk a caller out of their abortion 
decision.
    This is what I see every day at the Florida Access Network. 
We take calls from people who need help getting to a clinic and 
paying for their abortions. We help people with rides or gas 
money to get to their appointments.
    We help coordinate their childcare. We help people with 
lodging when they have to travel long distances, and we help 
young people navigate the judicial bypass process.
    Since 2015, we have supported nearly 2,000 people offering 
an average of $100 to help people meet the financial gap for 
their abortions, which cost on average $600 without insurance 
coverage.
    We fund abortion because low wages, abortion restrictions, 
like SB 8, and policies like the Hyde Amendment make abortion 
unattainable. Without the communities of support, we have 
created to relieve the burdens people face trying to access 
healthcare, no one should be turned away from healthcare that 
they want because they can't afford it.
    As I close, I want to remind the Committee Members of your 
responsibility to protect our right to have abortions free from 
undue burdens, shame, and stigma.
    You have the power to change the lives of millions of 
people in this country by enacting legislation that stands up 
for the dignity of every person who seeks an abortion.
    As we say at We Testify, everyone loves someone who has had 
an abortion and that includes every single one of you. To the 
people listening who have had or will have abortions, you are 
supported, you are loved, and I will never stop fighting for 
you.
    Thank you for listening to my story and I hope you remember 
that the actions you take impact your constituents and your 
loved ones who have had abortions.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Pineiro follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you all for your testimony. We will now 
proceed under the five-minute rule with questions. I will 
recognize myself for five minutes.
    Dr. Moayedi, how has SB 8 impacted abortion care in the 
communities you care for in Texas?
    Dr. Moayedi. Thank you for that question, Representative.
    SB 8 has completely decimated abortion access in my State 
and in the communities that I take care of. I every day almost 
am getting calls from my colleagues in the Dallas/Fort Worth 
area asking how to take care of the patients that they serve.
    People with devastating pregnancy diagnoses, whether it's 
for the pregnancy itself or for them unable to get care in our 
State, people with very severe chronic medical conditions with 
no other options, and just my neighbors, my colleagues and 
friends that have unintended pregnancies and have nowhere to 
turn to.
    We are working tirelessly to get people out of State, to 
help coordinate their care out of State. It's a nightmare. I 
have never thought that medical care would come to this.
    Chair Nadler. Ms. Pineiro, SB 8 has had ripple effects 
across the country. Can you give us a brief overview of what it 
looks like for someone in Florida, especially someone who's 
struggling to make ends meet, to seek an abortion? If SB 8 in 
Texas remains in effect, what does this mean for Floridians and 
people in other States seeking abortions?
    Ms. Pineiro. Abortion restrictions in Florida look like 
people like me on a Saturday morning sitting in my client's car 
babysitting her child because she didn't have access to 
childcare because she was busy working to try to support her 
family.
    It's interesting hearing the Committee talk about people's 
lives like they're so frivolous. Abortion restrictions impact 
people who are lied to by anti-abortion pregnancy centers about 
the gestational age.
    Abortion patients in clinics and providers are moving 
targets for harassment and clinics are targeted by the State 
and forced to endure unnecessary regulatory restrictions in 
having an abortion.
    Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Professor Bridges, during this hearing, I expect we will 
hear false claims, comparing abortion to eugenics and our 
country's history of slavery. Can you share your perspective on 
those claims?
    Dr. Bridges. Absolutely. Thank you so much for that 
question.
    Those claims proceed from a misunderstanding of what 
eugenics was about. Eugenics was about State control of 
reproductive decisions. Eugenics was about the State deciding 
who could and could not become parents, who would and would not 
be a good parent.
    That's not at all what abortion is about today. Abortion is 
about people exacting a modicum of control over their lives, 
deciding to terminate a pregnancy because it is in their best 
interest. It is in the best interest of their children, meaning 
that many of the people who have abortions are already parents.
    So, the comparison to eugenics is not that abortion today 
is eugenics. In fact, abortion restrictions today are 
comparable to eugenics in as much as abortion restrictions 
consists of the State determining what people will and will not 
do with their reproductive life. It's the State deciding who 
will become a parent, even though those people do not desire to 
become a parent themselves.
    So, again, the comparison isn't apt. Abortion is not 
eugenics. Abortion restrictions are more akin to eugenics.
    Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Fischbach?
    Ms. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I am just a bit curious what the purpose of today's hearing 
is. We're talking about a State law that is currently under 
review by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will decide 
if the law is constitutional and only the Supreme Court, not 
the House Judiciary Committee.
    That being said, we are here with a Texas State law in 
front of us. This law is currently in effect, and it is saving 
lives. It is saving the lives of unborn babies.
    Women and babies deserve better than being told that their 
only option is abortion. Many pro-life groups and individuals 
across the country reach out to pregnant women to help with 
support, diapers, housing, and with love.
    Abortion does not help women.
    After saying that, I have a couple of questions for Ms. 
Foster.
    Ms. Foster, first, thank you for being here. I appreciate 
the time you took and in sharing the information with us.
    In your experience, is it accurate to characterize elective 
abortion as healthcare?
    Ms. Foster. It is not.
    Ms. Fischbach. Thank you. Does that term accurately reflect 
what happens to a baby?
    Ms. Foster. Healthcare?
    Ms. Fischbach. Yes, during abortion.
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
    Ms. Fischbach. Maybe I should go back. Many of the Members 
and Witnesses present today have vigorously objected to the 
Heartbeat Law recently passed by Texas.
    The people of Texas chose through their duly-elected 
officials to protect unborn babies at that point, when a 
beating heart can be detected. How early can the fetal 
heartbeat be detected?
    Ms. Foster. Frequently, as early as 6-8 weeks.
    Ms. Fischbach. Are there any other things you can tell us 
about a baby that is going on at that gestational age?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely. At that point, you can see the 
beginnings of their arms, hands, legs, feet, hearing the 
heartbeat, and seeing the formation of their head and their 
features.
    We're talking about a human being. Life is not frivolous. 
That's the entire point here, and that child in the womb who is 
developing, who generally by the time that you hear that 
heartbeat that child will be viable--that pregnancy will be 
viable, and so the chances that she or he will grow to full 
term are very good at that point.
    Ms. Fischbach. Ms. Foster, I wasn't necessarily going to do 
it, but I did bring along a 10-week model and just to show that 
it's got--you can't see it, but he's got fingers and toes and 
it looks a lot like a little baby to me. It saddens me when we 
cheapen life through abortion and just in general.
    Just one final question Ms. Foster. You've written about 
providing alternatives to abortion, real alternatives, and it's 
necessary to really create a culture that allows for an 
understanding of motherhood and that is inclusive of women's 
hopes and dreams.
    Let's support women and not push them towards the violence 
and neglect of abortion. How can we as a nation better provide 
for women facing those unexpected pregnancies with real 
choices?
    Ms. Foster. Yes. There are so many ways that we can really 
stand with women in need and partners in need and support them. 
That involves governmental methods and nonprofits that are 
actively working in communities throughout our nation, 
outnumbering abortion facilities in the hundreds to thousands 
and are providing real alternatives or providing material 
resources like diapers, clothing, formula, and car seats, you 
name it--that are providing things like career training, 
parenting training, and are just providing that hope and 
support, encouraging women that--of course, as we know, the 
primary three reasons why women seek abortion, whether we're 
talking about first trimester or late term--from the abortion 
industry's own published studies--there are financial concerns, 
relationship issues, and not feeling ready to be a parent.
    All three of those areas are areas where we can come 
alongside women and stand with women and be there for them, and 
that is what pregnancy resource centers are doing in the 
thousands in communities throughout our nation, and that's what 
even we have government resources for. It's to stand with the 
disenfranchised and with the vulnerable and provide hope and 
support.
    Ms. Fischbach. Thank you very much.
    I would just say in closing, I think that would be a much 
better use of the Committee's time to be looking at what we can 
do to help instead of going through a law that is sitting in 
front of the Supreme Court and they will make the determination 
of its constitutionality.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair very much.
    I have the Constitution in my hand. I just want to quickly 
read the Ninth Amendment. The enumeration in the Constitution 
of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage 
others retained by the people. We clarify and characterize that 
as the right to privacy, which has not been undermined.
    Professor Bridges, my time is short, so very carefully, is 
any law that you know dealing with abortion rights, Roe v. 
Wade, and others forcing women to get an abortion? Is this 
required? Are they hauled into a physician's office? Or is this 
protection for their choice and their right to privacy?
    Professor Bridges?
    Dr. Bridges. Thank you for the question. No, no one's being 
coerced into an abortion.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, today, I want to focus on legislation 
that I have that I'm very grateful that many Members of the 
Judiciary Committee have decided to join and we hope more will, 
the Preventing Vigilante Stalking That Stops Women's Access to 
Health Care and Abortion Rights. Again, H.R. 5710, Preventing 
Vigilante Stalking That Stops Women's Access to Health Care and 
Abortion Rights.
    Doctor, a new study by Dr. David Eisenberg, a board-
certified obstetrician/gynecologist, and I think this has an 
overall impact, estimates the Texas SB 8's new restrictions on 
women's health could cause increases in maternal mortality, 
already high, of up to 15 percent overall and up to 33 percent 
for Black women.
    Can you focus on the outright horror of what it means to 
have a private citizen, even if you don't know the particulars, 
a private citizen to have the capacity to stalk you and to 
receive money on your bounty in terms of the provider and/or 
the woman?
    Dr. Moayedi?
    Dr. Moayedi. Thank you so much for the question, 
Representative.
    I don't have to imagine what it's like to have violent 
people stalking me because that is actually my life every 
single day as an abortion provider in Texas.
    I am followed into my job. I am screamed at. My child is 
screamed at by people that purport to love children. I get hate 
messages and death threats to my home simply for caring for my 
community.
    So, it's very disturbing for me personally to hear people 
proclaim to be pro-life while they actively threaten my life 
and my child's life. This law--yes, ma'am?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would Federal law to prevent this kind of 
stalking, at least give you a sense that the Federal government 
understands how criminal that behavior is, even though it's a 
private citizen? Would a Federal law prevent that?
    Dr. Moayedi. I'm not a politician and so I don't really 
understand the ins and outs of a policy like that. I know that 
there are Federal laws right now that should prevent these 
people from blocking access to our clinics and harassing our 
patients, but it does not.
    So, I welcome any opportunity to make our clinics more 
secure from violent protesters and to make my life safer from 
violent people. I'm just not sure what the right answer is.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, the stalking law is different. It 
stops people from stalking you under the Federal stalking law. 
Would that help you?
    Dr. Moayedi. I hope it would. I'm not sure. What I 
understand from stalking is that it has to be very persistent 
and routine, and so it is often very hard for us now even to 
get the FBI or local police departments to care about the 
current harassment that we get.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate it. That would change.
    Professor Bridges, the same. As you well know, not since 
the fugitive slave law have, we had this independent bounty 
hunting going on.
    Very briefly, would a modification of the Federal statute 
on stalking to stop people who are stalking you to prevent you 
to get health information on abortions, would that help? The 
whole bill needs to be eliminated, but would that help overall?
    Dr. Bridges. I would have to see the text of the bill that 
addresses stalking for me to offer a formal opinion and for me 
to determine whether it will, in fact, help.
    I welcome any effort that will help people in Texas and 
people across this country exercise their constitutionally-
protected right to terminate a pregnancy before viability.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Let me say to Stephanie, let me thank you for your courage. 
You should not have faced what you faced. I would simply raise 
the question, being in Florida as well, what do you think of a 
law that now is being promoted in other States that gives a 
private citizen, in addition to what you had to go to, expose 
yourself in court, but a private citizen the right to stalk you 
and get a bounty? What does that do to your privacy?
    Ms. Pineiro. It scares me. It scares the people that I 
support every day to get an abortion. I also welcome any 
legislation that would support with protecting clinic 
entrances.
    I will say that, unfortunately, people break the law every 
day, right, so enacting a law that would criminalize this 
behavior would be great. It wouldn't eliminate stalking from 
happening.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Mr. Chabot?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you for your answer.
    Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chair, nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme 
Court handed down one of its most controversial ever decisions, 
Roe v. Wade. Since that ruling, there have been over 60 million 
abortions in this country, 60 million innocent lives ended 
before they even had a chance. That's over a million abortions 
each year since this slaughter was legalized back in 1973 on 
January 22nd, which happens to be my birthday.
    Planned Parenthood alone performs over 320,000 abortions 
each year. That is approximately the population of my hometown, 
Cincinnati, Ohio. So, Planned Parenthood, essentially, wipes 
out the equivalent of the population of Cincinnati every year, 
year after year.
    Mr. Chair, life is precious, and we should do all we can to 
protect it. Since I was elected here, I have been involved in a 
whole range of pieces of legislation. I introduced the ban on 
partial birth abortion, for example, which President Bush 
signed into law. It went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. 
They upheld it and it is now the law of the land. There are 
still far too many abortions in this country.
    The legislation that we are discussing today is Texas law 
SB 8, and it would effectively, of course, ban abortions after 
a heartbeat is detected in the womb. This legislation has been 
described by many in the media as ``extreme and 
unprecedented.'' In reality, we have been discussing a ban on 
abortions after a heartbeat for years. In fact, 13 States, 
including my home State of Ohio, have enacted some form of 
legislation which prohibits abortions if a heartbeat is 
detected. There is the Federal Heartbeat Protection Act, which 
Mike Kelly, a member of this institution has cosponsored, along 
with many of us, and a number on this Committee. Mr. Chair, 
banning abortions after a baby's heartbeat is detected is 
neither extreme nor unprecedented.
    I will tell you something that is extreme, and that is 
allowing a massive abortion outfit, like Planned Parenthood, to 
kill the equivalent of Cincinnati's population every year. 
Something else that is extreme is witnessing Members on the 
other side of the aisle abandoning the Hyde Amendment, which 
has enjoyed bipartisan support for 40 years now and has saved 
nearly 2.5 million lives. Getting rid of the Hyde Amendment 
will force American taxpayers to pay for other people's 
abortions.
    Even though the radical left is fully in control in the 
House and in the Senate and in the White House, States and 
local governments are fighting back. In addition to the 
heartbeat bills that we have already mentioned, earlier this 
year, two cities in my Congressional District, Lebanon, and 
Mason, became the first cities in Ohio to pass an ordinance 
making them pro-life sanctuary cities and forbidding abortions 
within their city limits. I applaud the leaders in both of 
those communities for taking that brave stance. I hope others 
will follow that example.
    Mr. Chair, we need to be direct and honest about what is 
being discussed here today. Abortion is not healthcare. It is a 
barbaric procedure that ends the life of an unborn baby. By 10 
weeks, an unborn baby has arms and legs and fingers and toes, 
and among other things, he or she can such their thumb, 
stretch, jump when startled. In short, these babies are alive, 
and they deserve our protection.
    Ms. Glenn Foster, let me ask you this: One of our other 
Witnesses has already, quite astonishingly, said that abortion 
is an act of love. Is that your opinion?
    Ms. Foster. It is not. Life is not frivolous. Abortion is 
not healthcare. That is the whole point.
    I never thought that I would hear an OB/GYN tell this 
Committee that dismembering a fellow human being is an act of 
love, an act of freedom. We can and we must do better.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
    You mentioned the dismemberment abortion. When we passed 
the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, we knew we were stopping 
thousands of abortions each year, but we knew there were other 
forms. I know it is pretty horrific, but could you describe, 
essentially, what a dismemberment abortion is, which is still 
legal in this country?
    Ms. Foster. Certainly. It involves inserting tools into the 
uterus, into the womb, to literally rip a child apart limb from 
limb. That is really the crux of it.
    Mr. Chabot. Pretty horrific stuff. These babies, 
oftentimes, are capable of feeling pain, is that correct?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely. If you are doing prenatal surgery, 
then, not only do you provide anesthesia to the mother, but you 
also treat the baby's potential pain.
    Mr. Chabot. One last question. I am almost out of time. We 
are trying to protect both the health of the woman and the 
baby, is that right? We are trying to protect both?
    Ms. Foster. Yes, and the majority of Americans understand 
that, when we pass pro-life laws, that is what we are doing. We 
are protecting both mother and child.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Johnson?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding 
this hearing.
    Professor Bridges, let's start with the obvious. Texas' law 
known as SB 8 bans abortion at, roughly, six weeks of 
pregnancy. Isn't SB 8 a clear violation of the right to 
abortion prior to fetal viability, that right having been 
established under Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed in Planned 
Parenthood v. Casey, and most recently, in 2018, in June 
Medical Services v. Russo?
    Dr. Bridges. Absolutely. In the words of Justice
    Sotomayor, SB 8 is ``flagrantly unconstitutional.'' 
Nevertheless, it is in effect.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, it would be fair to say that SB 
8 is actually blatantly constitutional--blatantly 
unconstitutional? Sorry.
    Dr. Bridges. Absolutely. Every superlative I have for you, 
blatantly, flagrantly, obviously, undeniably, all of them.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, Professor Bridges, what do 
you make of the United States Supreme Court's decision to allow 
the blatantly unconstitutional SB 8 to remain in effect while 
its constitutionality is challenged in the lower courts?
    Dr. Bridges. I take that to be a sign that the Supreme 
Court has backed away from its role as the apolitical branch of 
government. While the Executive and Legislative branches are 
supposed to be the political branches, the Judiciary is 
supposed to be the apolitical branch. Nevertheless, the Supreme 
Court is making decisions that reveal that it is being 
motivated by raw political will, raw political power.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, Professor Bridges, was it 
extraordinary for the Supreme Court, without full briefing, 
without oral argument, and without even the dignity of a 
reasoned opinion, to use its shadow docket to temporarily allow 
the State of Texas to deny a recognized constitutional right to 
nearly 1 out of every 10 women of reproductive age in this 
country?
    Dr. Bridges. Absolutely. It was extraordinary, it was 
egregious, and it was extreme. I would note that, prior to 
September 1, very few people would have imagined that the 
Supreme Court would let a flagrantly constitutional law go into 
effect, when it had the power to enjoin it.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. In fact, Professor Bridges, by 
allowing SB 8 to remain in effect during the pendency of the 
challenge to its constitutionality, the Supreme Court itself 
ignored stare decisis and denied every woman in the entire 
State of Texas a fundamental constitutional right, isn't that 
correct?
    Dr. Bridges. That is correct. The Supreme Court backed away 
from its own established precedents, its own established 
precedents even regarding the shadow docket, which is to 
preserve the status quo. The Supreme Court allowed the status 
quo to change, and in allowing the status quo to change, it 
allowed for the infringement of a Texan's right to terminate a 
pregnancy before viability.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You have touched on this, Professor 
Bridges. Does the Supreme Court's decision to allow SB 8 to 
remain in effect indicate how this ultraconservative majority 
will approach future abortion cases?
    Dr. Bridges. Oh, it sends the strongest signal I can 
imagine about how the Supreme Court feels about abortion 
rights, which are still fundamental rights under the U.S. 
Constitution. The Supreme Court's holding in Whole Woman's 
Health v. Jackson, its decision to let that flagrantly 
unconstitutional law go into effect, reveals that the Supreme 
Court does not care much for the abortion right; they will not 
protect the abortion right in the same way that it will protect 
other rights that it favors.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Professor.
    SB 8 is touted as protecting women, when, in fact, it is 
doing nothing more than attempting to control, criminalize, and 
dehumanize women and their ability to exercise control over 
their reproductive health.
    Ms. Pineiro, thank you for sharing your story here with us 
today. Based on your experiences, what substantive effects 
would the outcome that Professor Bridges just discussed have on 
individuals in your State?
    Ms. Pineiro. People in the State of Florida are already 
facing restrictions to abortions. Florida has a 24-week 
gestational ban already in place, and any delay in abortion 
care should be and remain unconstitutional.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to the Witnesses for testifying today.
    Dr. Moayedi, as I understood from your testimony, you have 
done late-term abortions, correct?
    Dr. Moayedi. Sir, that is not a medical term, but I provide 
abortion care, yes.
    Mr. Gohmert. Even past 22 weeks at times, when it is 
allowed, right?
    Dr. Moayedi. Depending on the jurisdiction in which I'm 
providing care, yes, sir.
    Mr. Gohmert. Right. Yes.
    We had some years back--some of you all may remember--a 
person who had provided late-term abortions. It is interesting, 
yes, in the medical field, there are terms; in the legal field, 
there are terms.
    He described in detail--I think he said he had done over a 
thousand late-term abortions, or if you would prefer, 
dismemberment abortions--and he described in much greater 
detail, Ms. Foster, about the instrument that was used to 
insert into the womb. He described how he would feel around for 
something linear, and the longer linear, he knew was a leg. He 
would clamp on, and he described in detail how he would pull 
that leg out of socket and pull it from the body, and then, how 
he would find another linear object about the same length, rip 
that off of the body, and then, look for, feel around for two 
shorter linear items, knowing those were the two arms; rip them 
out from the body.
    Once they were removed, he said in his words he ``would 
feel for something bulbous,'' and you know that was the skull. 
You would clamp onto the skull and crush it, because the 
child's head would not come through the uterus that was at that 
point not dilated. It would be easier, once you had crushed the 
skull--yanked it away from the body, then pull the body out.
    For some of us, that is considered--and I know Dr. Moayedi 
used the term ``hateful and cruel'' with regard to the Texas 
law--but some of us would describe that procedure of ripping 
arms and legs and the head off of a baby as being a bit hateful 
and cruel.
    We have also heard reference to your position being 
somewhat hateful and cruel. Ms. Foster, do you disagree that 
mothers who are carrying a child that they didn't expect or did 
not deserve to be loved?
    Ms. Foster. Of course. Absolutely.
    Mr. Gohmert. Have you provided help to mothers in that 
condition?
    Ms. Foster. I have, and in a variety of ways. First, I was 
myself in that position when I was 19 years old. I needed that 
help and love. I did not find it. So, I have spent the years 
since trying to be that hope and help and love to other women 
and other families.
    I served as chair of the board of a pregnancy center for a 
number of years. I still continue to serve on that board. I 
have volunteered with numerous other pregnancy centers. I have 
sidewalk counseled. I have reached out to women and families in 
my communities and simply served as a safe space and a sounding 
board and a resource. So, when people found themselves in an 
unexpected situation, they would be able to find out more and 
get information about where to go.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
    Dr. Moayedi, when you have done abortions, is there another 
physician there or are you the only medical doctor involved in 
the abortion?
    Dr. Moayedi. I'm a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.
    Mr. Gohmert. Okay.
    Dr. Moayedi. Depending on where I provide abortion care, 
there might be another physician in the room or not.
    Mr. Gohmert. Yes. I was just curious because when my wife 
had my first daughter--she is amazing--when she was born very 
prematurely, we had the OB/GYN, and we also had a pediatrician 
there whose sole goal and job was to protect the entrance of 
our child. He did an amazing job. It required hospitalization 
and intubation, and all kinds of things. I'm so thankful we had 
a pediatrician there looking out for the interest of the child 
and an OB/GYN looking out for the mother. I commend that to 
everyone else.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Bass
    Ms. Bass, you should unmute yourself.
    Ms. Bass. I'm so sorry. Sorry about that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, for conducting this important 
hearing, and to the Witnesses, for your testimony here today.
    It is not lost on me that we are here discussing a bill 
that empowers, essentially, vigilantes to circumvent the rights 
of others. I really wanted to ask one of the Witnesses, 
Professor Bridges, if you could talk about that, that aspect of 
the bill. Then, also, put it in its historical context in terms 
of that type policing and the impact that that is going to 
have, and how you imagine that is going to play out in the 
State of Texas.
    Dr. Bridges. Yeah. Thank you so much for that question.
    So, what--and the term that you use, ``vigilante justice,'' 
is precisely what I would use to describe what's going on in 
Texas. Essentially, the State is allowing--the Supreme Court 
has allowed the State to allow private citizens to police, to 
terrorize, and to control the bodies of other private citizens.
    That is precisely how we would describe chattel slavery in 
this country, for example. The State was permitted to allow 
private citizens to police, terrorize, control the bodies of 
the other human beings who they considered to be property.
    I will also note that the analogy is not an epithet at all 
because part and parcel of chattel slavery was the control of 
people's reproductive lives. It was because humans were 
property, it was an incentive of the people who purported to 
own that property to coerce the birth of more property. So, the 
State allowed private citizens to coerce birth from people. 
That's precisely what's happening in Texas.
    Ms. Bass. Well, but let me just ask you, because that 
doesn't apply to everyone.
    Dr. Bridges. Uh-hum.
    Ms. Bass. I don't think it applied to everyone back in the 
days of enslavement, and I don't know of the vigilantism that 
is okay in this bill applies to everyone, either. For example, 
I don't know to the extent that would apply to a woman who was 
particularly affluent. I don't exactly know, and maybe you can 
describe a little bit about that.
    I also think it is ironic because, right now, they just 
finished picking the jury in the Ahmaud Arbery trial, and that 
as, to me, exactly that type of vigilantism. The young man was 
jogging, and he was, essentially, gunned down because they 
assumed that he had done something wrong.
    So, how does it even work in the bill? How is somebody 
supposed to know the woman in that car, where she is going?
    Dr. Bridges. Right. You've just got to guess. The thing is 
that the bill incentivizes people to guess, to attempt to reap 
the monetary rewards of a successful lawsuit.
    One thing that I just want to mention, thank you for 
bringing up Ahmaud Aubrey. It's such a tragedy, but at least 
his family has the ability to try to seek justice in the court. 
What the Supreme Court has done--up until right now, we're 
still in a world in which the Supreme Court has boxed 
individuals out of the Federal judiciary. There's nowhere where 
we can seek recourse. So, that is why Congress has to act.
    Ms. Bass. Well, I wanted to know, also, if you could talk 
about maybe other aspects of this history in the criminal 
justice system. I mean, you mentioned the period of 
enslavement, but I want to know if you could describe other 
times. If you could also speak about how abortion bans and 
restrictions are already used to criminalize people accessing 
abortion, and how it could get worse, if Roe is overturned?
    Dr. Bridges. Right. I mean, so I spoke about chattel 
slavery, but we know that that history extends well beyond 
chattel slavery throughout reconstruction. It took a civil 
rights movement before people of color were granted formal 
citizenship. So, private actors were permitted to control their 
lives.
    I want to spend some time, though, talking about how bans 
and regulations like SB 8 move abortion access out of the hands 
of the most marginalized people. What that means is those with 
privilege, as you gestured to before, are able to travel to 
Kansas; they're able to travel to Oklahoma, and they're able to 
travel to my State of California. They are exercising their 
constitutional rights, albeit burdened. The most marginalized 
aren't able to do that. What that means is that they're 
resorting to methods that have been criminalized, especially in 
Texas.
    Ms. Bass. Well, I actually wonder whether an affluent woman 
would have to leave the State. Because I would imagine that a 
woman of affluence could have that type of care right there in 
the State of Texas.
    Dr. Bridges. Absolutely. We know that in the pre-Roe era 
people were able to get abortions from their obstetrician.
    Ms. Bass. All right. Thank you. I'm out of time.
    Dr. Bridges. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Professor Bridges, you are familiar with a great deal of 
constitutional law. Would you say that the decisions decided by 
the Supreme Court against President Trump were appropriate in 
deciding the questions of the election?
    Dr. Bridges. I am a constitutional law scholar, but I do 
not do--my expertise is not in election law.
    Mr. Issa. I understand, but you are at UC Berkeley. You are 
a professor. You did note those decisions, didn't you? Did you 
think that they were reasoned? Did you have any objections to 
them?
    Dr. Bridges. I could speak about how I felt about them from 
a layperson's perspective. Because I'm not an election law 
scholar, I can't speak on the well-reasoned nature or not of 
those decisions.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    Ms. Foster, do you find it interesting that everyone seems 
to have an opinion that the Supreme Court is extreme and biased 
when it comes to one issue, but this would be no exception. 
Anytime the Court seems to rule against what conservatives 
would like, I hear nothing that they are well-reasoned and 
balanced. Do you find that humorous, even from your position, 
not as a scholar in that area?
    Ms. Foster. It certainly is interesting. As we heard 
earlier, Chuck Schumer stood on the steps of the Supreme Court 
on March 4, 2020, and threatened Justices Gorsuch and 
Kavanaugh, prompting a rare public response from the Chief 
Justice who called the remarks ``inappropriate and dangerous.''
    We see these transparent efforts to bully the Supreme Court 
into issuing opinions that serve certain policy goals, rather 
than interpreting the Constitution. I believe we should all be 
raising our sights. We know that too much of life in Washington 
can feel like political theater. They need not be that way. We 
can all care about women here today, and we do, but truth here 
must start with the stopping of abortion.
    Mr. Issa. To that extent, it is interesting to me that the 
Associated Press and the University of Chicago found that 65 
percent of Americans said abortion during the second trimester 
was wrong, and 80 percent in the third trimester. It's 
interesting that more than half of the Witnesses and more than 
half of the people here on this dais have the exact opposite 
opinion as 80 percent of Americans, including President Biden 
who, unlike the Chair, has expressed skepticism in court 
packing as a solution.
    I want to play something for the record here very quickly.

[Audio played: ``Our vision should be of an America where 
abortion is safe and legal, but rare.'']

    Mr. Issa. Did you hear anything today from the majority 
that implied that they agreed with President Clinton on the 
``rare'' part of abortion?
    Ms. Foster. It seems like today the focus is on making 
abortion legal and ubiquitous, but certainly not rare, and as 
we all too often see, not safe. We need a Court that is 
concerned with justice.
    Mr. Issa. Well, in speaking of justice, look, I'm from a 
State where even trying to provide abortion alternatives, even 
making young pregnant in need aware of families who would adopt 
their child and give them a good home, is discouraged and 
sometimes prohibited. So, I'm not from a State that is like 
Texas.
    Looking at Texas and Florida for a moment, did Texas and 
Florida--Florida, for example, at 22 weeks, is it consistent 
with the Roe decision? Is Florida in that part of its law 
looking at viability and setting a number which is certainly 
viable with today's science?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely. Florida--Florida's law regarding 
late-term abortions is completely in line with the 
Constitution. It's completely in line with viability and the 
limits set by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and 
it is in line with the opinion of the vast majority of 
Americans, including Democrats and self-described pro-choice 
Americans.
    Mr. Issa. So, today, we are hearing something that is 
inconsistent with 80 percent of Americans; we are hearing 
testimony, except for yours, that implies extreme by a Court 
that has been well-balanced, and we are hearing that somehow it 
is extreme to set 22 weeks, a point at which babies are 
regularly born alive and well, is somehow wrong. Isn't that 
what we are hearing here today?
    Ms. Foster. That is what we're hearing, and there is 
nothing more tragic than abortion killing when a child can 
already definitively survive. There is no medical basis for 
killing a child at 22 weeks or later, absolutely none, and you 
don't need to be a doctor to make that decision or judgment. 
You simply need to be a human being.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rest my case.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    There is a series of Floor votes. A series of votes have 
started on the Floor. So, the Committee will be in--do you 
think we can do one more? Okay, we will do one more.
    Mr. Jeffries?
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for convening 
this incredibly important hearing.
    Ms. Foster, the Texas law doesn't start at 22 weeks, is 
that correct, in terms of its restriction?
    Ms. Foster. That is correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. It starts at six weeks, is that true?
    Ms. Foster. It does.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. So, I'm not really certain what the 
prior conversation was about.
    Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Jeffries. No, I won't.
    Under the Texas abortion ban, someone who misses that six-
week window would be forced to carry their pregnancy to term, 
even if they were raped, is that correct?
    Ms. Foster. Under the Texas law, that, the protections for 
the mother and for the child start with that detection of the 
heartbeat at six weeks, yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. All right. So, there is no exception beyond 
the six-week period for rape, correct?
    Ms. Foster. When we are talking about rape, it is a 
horrible tragedy, period. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about 
that, and we need to rid the world of those kinds of actions. 
Nowhere in our justice system is there ever a time when the 
innocent has to pay for the crime of another, for the crime of 
the father. The killing of a baby for the crimes of his or her 
father is never justice. In fact, that's injustice.
    Mr. Jeffries. All right. The question is, is there a rape 
exception? The answer is no. The question, that is interesting 
because you with my former colleagues about public sentiment. 
Are the actions of rape exception popular among the American 
people or even the people in the great State of Texas?
    Ms. Foster. Yes, 55 percent of Texans support the heartbeat 
law, let alone something as far along as 22 weeks. So, yes, 
most Americans and most Texans do support this heartbeat law.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. That is very inconsistent, and that 
wasn't an answer to the question that I asked.
    Let's go to another particular issue. If someone misses 
this six-week window, and the pregnancy resulted from incest, 
would they still be forced to carry that baby to term?
    Ms. Foster. Again, I would simply say the child does not 
deserve the death penalty for the father's crime. So, the 
heartbeat bill is protecting children from the moment that that 
heartbeat is detected.
    Mr. Jeffries. Right. So, there is no incest exception in 
the Texas so-called statute, is that correct?
    Ms. Foster. Wouldn't that fall under rape as well?
    Mr. Jeffries. It is a yes-or-no question.
    Ms. Foster. Correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. Is there an incest exception, yes or no?
    Ms. Foster. There is no specific incest exception, but the 
child does not deserve to die because of the crime of a father.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Professor Bridges, let me ask you a 
question, picking up on a theme that my colleague Karen Bass 
was pursuing with you in terms of criminalization. Would the 
outlawing of abortion and restricting the reproductive freedom 
of women, as is being done in a very extreme and Draconian way 
in Texas, would that have a disproportionately adverse impact 
on Black women?
    Dr. Bridges. Absolutely. This is true for a number of 
reasons.
    (1) Black people disproportionately bear the burdens of 
poverty. So, that means, (2) that they proportionately--they 
have higher rates of unintended pregnancy, which is the main 
reason why people choose to exercise their constitutional right 
to terminate a pregnancy.
    Moreover, if they do not have the right to legally 
terminate a pregnancy, that means that people will resort to 
things that have been criminalized. We know--just look across 
the country--that even though we have race-neutral criminal 
statutes, statutes that are supposed to apply to everyone 
equally, people of color are those who are disproportionately 
arrested, indicted, convicted, incarcerated under our criminal 
laws. So, any criminal law, at least, can expect to have a 
disproportionate impact on people of color.
    Mr. Jeffries. Well, thank you very much.
    Just in closing, I know my colleague talked about the 
issues in terms of the Supreme Court. I respect all my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as we debate and discuss 
all these issues. Part of the challenge that many of us have 
with this current extreme, right-wing Supreme Court is that, 
engineered by Mitch McConnell, he stole, not one, but two 
Supreme Court Justices--one from President Obama and the other 
from President Biden--explicitly, to jam these types of extreme 
laws down the throats of the American people.
    Mr. Issa. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. 
Chair, Jerry Nadler.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    A series of votes have been called on the House Floor. 
Therefore, the Committee will take a recess and we will return 
immediately after the conclusion of these votes.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Nadler. The Committee will come to order.
    Before we begin, I want to apologize to our Witnesses for 
the lengthy and unexpected break for votes. We appreciate your 
staying with us so we can continue this important hearing.
    Mr. Jeffries was the last--so Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.
    Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair?
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. Yes, Mr. Chair, our Witness was unable to stay. 
Frankly if we had started this Committee on time, we would have 
got to hear from her. She was doing an amazing job. Started two 
hours late and then the Democrats add votes during the vote 
series that weren't scheduled and now we have no Witness.
    Chair Nadler. Well, your staff indicated that was fine at 
the time.
    Mr. Jordan. Indicated what was fine at the time? You 
starting the Committee two hours late?
    Chair Nadler. Yes, we had a Democratic caucus, and we 
informed your staff, and they indicated it was fine.
    Mr. Jordan. Not aware of any indication to that effect at 
all. All I know is our Witness can't be here. She had family 
commitments she had to get back home for.
    Chair Nadler. I am sorry. I don't know what the--we have 
three Witnesses here.
    Mr. Jordan. No, the point is--
    Chair Nadler. I don't know what the alternative is.
    Mr. Jordan. --when you schedule a hearing, it is not the 
Republican's fault or the Republican-invited Witness's fault 
that you guys don't have the votes for this package that is 
going to harm the country. That is not our problem.
    Chair Nadler. I am not going to get into the merits--
    Mr. Jordan. Now, we don't have a Witness.
    Chair Nadler. I am not going to get into the merits of 
whatever we are doing other than the Committee right now. We 
have no alternative but to continue the hearing because when 
would we reconvene it?
    Mr. Jordan. Well, that is up to you. I don't get to 
schedule things, which again--
    Chair Nadler. We are going--
    Mr. Jordan. If I get to schedule things, we would have 
started at 10:00 a.m.
    Chair Nadler. Yes. Well, I didn't have that choice.
    Mr. Jordan. What do you mean? You are the Chair. Of course, 
you had that choice.
    Chair Nadler. The hearing will continue.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today our 
Democratic colleagues brought us here. We heard this morning 
before we had to break a lot of grandstanding about abortion 
rights, and we came here so they could criticize a State law 
rather than hold a hearing on several important legislative 
items that have long been-awaiting a hearing in this Committee 
on this very topic of abortion. We have a number of bills we 
would love to have heard.
    My questions are for Ms. Moayedi, who boasted on her 
Twitter feed on October 26, complete with a dancing Egyptian 
princess meme, the following: Here it is. She said, ``Some days 
I leave clinic and think damn, I really was put on this earth 
to be the best damn abortion provider this side of the 
Mississippi. Not a humble brag. That is a full on brag brag. I 
am that good. Three hearts.''
    Well, with those credentials, ma'am, I am really glad you 
are here, at least on video. I really wish I had a full day to 
ask you some questions, but let's start with the written 
testimony you submitted for this hearing. I have highlighted 
some of the truly incredible statements you made there.
    The stunning irony of the opening of your fourth paragraph 
struck me. You wrote, ``I want this Committee to spend a few 
moments thinking about what it's like to be a person needing 
abortion care in this country.'' So, just so I have this 
straight, you want us to, quote, ``think about what it's like 
to be a person,'' really. What about those thousands of 
innocent pre-born children that you have been involved in the 
abortion of? What about them?
    As the National Right to Life Committee summarized it so 
well, when a woman is pregnant science tells us that the new 
life she carries is a completely separate and fully new human 
being from the moment of fertilization. By the time most 
abortions can be performed the baby already has a beating heart 
and identifiable brain waves.
    The baby living in her mother is as distinct and unique, a 
separate person, human being as I am from you. This human being 
like all of us has the unalienable right to life and deserves 
the full protection under the law. The baby that every mother 
carries as she faces life and death decisions has a beating 
heart at 22 days after fertilization, brain waves as early as 
six weeks after fertilization. Most abortions are not performed 
until at least after--on or after nine weeks of the pregnancy.
    This is a model of a 10-week pre-born child. It obviously 
is a child. If you look at it at this stage, he or she has 
fingers and toes. They begin to practice breathing and facial 
expressions, even smiling. That is a very tiny person, ma'am. 
That is what we are talking about. So, yes, let's consider what 
it means to be a person.
    Your written testimony goes on to describe the Texas 
Heartbeat Law as, quote, ``incredibly wrong, hateful, and 
cruel, and dehumanizing'' to the clients you serve. Again I 
would just ask--I would say really? Really? What about the 
brutal violence and the murder that is committed upon the pre-
born child? That is the ultimate violation of human rights, the 
ultimate hateful and cruel act, the ultimate dehumanizing act. 
It is as if the world is upside-down.
    I was particularly stunned to read the conclusion of your 
written testimony, ma'am, where you quoted--you said, quote, 
``Abortion is love. Abortion is a blessing.'' What a twisted 
thing it is to suggest that the murder of 62 million innocent 
pre-born children in this country is a blessing.
    Whether you or your friends acknowledge it or not, abortion 
is the horrible violation of the most essential truths and 
commands of our Creator. Scripture clearly teaches and our 
Declaration of Independence plainly affirms a self-evident 
truth, not an opinion, but a self-evident truth that we are all 
created by God and given by Him the same inalienable rights 
beginning with the right to life.
    Congress has a duty to protect these fundamental rights and 
the lives of the pre-born because they are unable to protect 
themselves. To put it bluntly, our duty is to protect these 
innocent children from the unimaginable callousness and 
barbaric violence that is done at the hands of the industry you 
represent.
    All life is precious. Because we are all made in God's 
image every single one of us has inestimable dignity and value, 
and our value is not related in any way to the color of our 
skin, the ZIP Code we live in, how good looking we are, where 
we went to school. Our value is inherent because it is given to 
us by God. It is a biological reality that a pre-born child is 
a member of the human family and more and more the American 
people understand that.
    On October 9, Ms. Moayedi, you tweeted, ``It's okay and 
healthy to have sex for pleasure. Birth is punishment for 
pleasure.'' I want to make sure everybody knows the credentials 
of our Witnesses here.
    Here is another one: October 13 somebody tweeted, ``Was 
your abortion experience funny? If so, direct mail or email me 
at'' their email address. You shared that tweet and you said, 
``I can't wait to read this piece,'' with three hearts.
    Look, I think that says enough about the credentials and 
about the arguments that are being made here. I think the 
American people make the judgment for their self. Abortion is 
not funny. It is an unspeakable tragedy. I think this hearing 
is a mockery of it. I think the challenge to the Texas State 
law is wrong. I am out of time. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Cicilline?
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Chair Nadler for convening this 
important hearing and thank you to our Witnesses for being here 
today.
    I am glad that this Committee is making clear the dire 
consequences of SB 8 for American women, women in Texas and the 
surrounding states, and across the country.
    To be honest it is sort of disappointing that we need to 
convene this hearing at all or to have this debate because so 
many of us thought that this issue was well-settled law in the 
United States by the decision by the United States Supreme 
Court in Roe v. Wade. In fact, I am not alone in that 
conclusion. Fifty-eight percent of Americans are opposed to 
overturning Roe v. Wade, and 8 in 10 Americans support legal 
abortion. So, lots of people thought this was settled law.
    I note that in her written testimony Ms. Foster says that 
the Supreme Court, and I quote, ``can and should take the 
opportunity to recognize the unsettled nature of Roe v. Wade 
and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.''
    So, my first question is for you, Professor Bridges. Are 
Roe and Casey unsettled law in any way?
    Dr. Bridges. Absolutely not. Roe v. Wade is half a century 
old. It is completely workable. The undue standard that Casey 
established for reviewing the constitutionality of abortion 
regulations that burden the abortion right, the fundamental 
right to abortion has been workable. We've been working it for 
30 years. There's nothing unsettled about Roe or Casey.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Dr. Moayedi, I hope I am pronouncing that correctly, we 
have heard a lot of misinformation about abortion care from the 
other side during this hearing today. Let me be clear: Abortion 
care is critical, often lifesaving healthcare. To start, is 
there any scientific or medical justification for a six-week 
ban on abortion?
    Dr. Moayedi. There's no medical or scientific explanation 
or justification for any restrictions on abortion care. 
Abortion is exceedingly safe. It is lifesaving and it is 
critical to the health and safety of our families and 
communities.
    Mr. Cicilline. Is there any other misinformation about 
abortion care that you would like to correct for the record 
today?
    Dr. Moayedi. Yes, most everything that has been spoke about 
abortion care. Especially I'm troubled by asking a lawyer 
earlier to answer questions about healthcare. I think that 
really speaks to how some Members of this Committee feel about 
science and medicine in general.
    I'll say that you cannot have birth and health [inaudible] 
without access to abortion care. It is not possible. Abortion 
care is lifesaving. The people I take care of trust me to 
listen to them and I trust them to make the best decisions for 
themselves and for their families.
    When people come to see me, I offer them nonjudgmental, 
unbiased, nondirective information and education so that they 
can make decisions for themselves, and I trust them to make the 
right decisions for themselves.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you very much, doctor.
    Ms. Pineiro, thank you so much for your very powerful 
testimony and for being here today. Ms. Foster cited a number 
of justifications for the lack of a rape exception in SB 8, and 
as a sexual assault survivor I can only imagine how difficult 
it was to hear those answers and I would like to give you the 
opportunity to respond to anything Ms. Foster said with respect 
to this legislation having no rape exception. To be clear to 
require victims of sexual assault/rape, to compel them to give 
birth to the child of their assailant.
    Ms. Pineiro. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and 
I'm really glad that I'll have the opportunity to respond to 
it.
    I as a survivor firmly feel both appalled and worried that 
elected officials would affirm that forcing survivors of incest 
and rape to remain pregnant is okay. I'm worried for many 
people in this country who need abortion care. I'm worried for 
the millions of survivors of incest and sexual assault that 
suffer every day at the hands of abusers, at the hands of 
stigma.
    As I sat here listening to that, I think about all the 
women in my life I love who are also survivors who called to 
thank me today for sharing my testimony. Thank you.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you so much.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This hearing today is another attempt by Democrats to 
promote and glorify abortion, and as Ms. Foster said, it is 
also to increase the number of abortions in this country.
    Earlier this year President Biden sent a budget request to 
Congress that did not contain any pro-life protections and 
every President since Jimmy Carter has either requested pro-
life protections or signed appropriations bills into law that 
contained pro-life protections. Senator Biden supported the 
Hyde Amendment, but President Biden has bowed to pressure and 
renounced the Hyde Amendment.
    In June, House Democrats passed several appropriations 
bills that did not include any pro-life protections, 
protections that have historically received bipartisan support.
    In September, House Democrats passed the Women's Health 
Protection Act of 2021, a misnomer as health protection 
inherently does not involve the taking of a life, which would 
codify into Federal law abortion on demand.
    In fact, we have heard the abortion providers and 
supporters testify today that this is a safe medical procedure, 
and yet a safe medical procedure that has two healthy lives go 
into that procedure and yet only one comes out alive is not 
really healthcare, nor is it safe medical care. If the Women's 
Health Protection Act of 2021 were enacted, States would be 
prohibited from protecting unborn children at any stage of 
development. Only one Democrat voted against the bill. That is 
how far the Democrat Party has moved on this issue.
    We heard a statement in OGR by a Witness; she said it again 
today that abortion is a blessing, an act of love. It is 
freedom. Unless you happen to be the baby in the womb. Then it 
is not so much of a blessing. Really?
    Yet, that same Witness said that she has been stalked and 
she wants to make, quote, ``I want to make my life safer from 
dangerous people,'' close quote. She should be safer from 
dangerous people. I agree with that. Just like the baby in the 
womb should be safe from her and dangerous people just like 
her.
    So, ending the life of an unborn child should never be the 
easiest decision you make. Abortion is not a blessing; it is 
not an act of love or freedom. We should all reflect on Mother 
Teresa's words from her address at the National Prayer 
Breakfast. She said, quote, ``I feel that the greatest 
destroyer of peace today is abortion. It is really a war 
against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, 
murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that the mother 
can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not 
to kill one another?'' close quote.
    The Democrat majority in this House is obsessed with 
abortion. It is obsessed with ensuring that States are unable 
to pass laws to protect the unborn. Well, we concede--not just 
concede, we champion, we shout from the rooftops that every 
life is precious and should be cherished.
    In fact, the Declaration of Independence says, ``We hold 
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created 
equal. They are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable 
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness.'' You cannot have liberty unless you are alive, and 
you cannot pursue happiness unless you are alive. We must 
protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and 
abortion does not protect any of these rights. It destroys 
these rights.
    At the same Oversight Hearing one of the Witnesses referred 
to pro-life protections such as the Hyde Amendment as 
discriminatory, classist, and racist. A Member of this House 
stated that abortion restrictions are part of the intertwined 
systems of oppression that deny Black, Indigenous, and people 
of color of their constitutional rights.
    Gloria Steinem claimed, quote, ``I think there is a 
profoundly racist resistance to the continuation of the right 
to safe and legal abortion and we see that in the nature of the 
resistors and the nature of their politics,'' close quote. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Hyde Amendment and 
other pro-life protections are not racist; they actually save 
lives.
    However, Margaret Sanger, the founder Planned Parenthood 
was a racist once saying, ``We don't want the word to go out 
that we want to exterminate the African-American population.'' 
I will submit into the record the document where she said that.
    Yet, Democrats cannot stop defending Planned Parenthood. 
Instead of celebrating abortion we should all be united in 
working to preserve life.
    I would ask Ms. Foster if she was here, but after eight 
hours of delays today our Witness is not here for me to ask 
certain questions. I can conclude, as I am sure she would, 
that--are we as a nation worse off because there are fewer 
abortions? The answer would be indeed yes. We are a stronger 
nation when we protect those that cannot protect themselves 
such as the unborn.
    Mr. Chair, I submit to the record the following articles: 
One entitled, ``Margaret Sanger Founded of Planned of 
Parenthood on Racism,'' another called, ``Margaret Sanger's 
Racist Legacy Lives On at Planned Parenthood,'' and the third 
is, ``Remove Statues of Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood 
Founder, Tied to Eugenics and Racism.'' I will yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
      

                        MR. BIGGS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. I am 
hoping that I could use my few minutes here to cut through the 
thick fog of political rhetoric we have been hearing to try to 
identify what is really at stake in the discussion right now. I 
want to thank our GOP colleagues for inviting Ms. Foster to 
come in to testify because her testimony was [audio 
malfunction] of this Committee is at this point in the debate.
    [Audio malfunction] with her husband, her partner, her 
physician, her family she can make the decision that she needs 
originally according to a trimester framework, but then for an 
abortion in the event of--that the abortion takes place pre-
viability; that is, before a fetus could live outside the body 
of the mother. That is the Supreme Court's jurisprudence today 
and that is where we are in America.
    I think it corresponds to the views of the vast majority of 
the American people that within the early period where you have 
a nonviable fetus that it is within the woman's right to choose 
under substantive due process liberty. It is part of the 
freedom of Americans to make that decision.
    Now, Ms. Foster referred to abortions as murder of children 
and the murder of 20 million. I think we just heard from our 
distinguished colleague from Louisiana it is 22 million people 
who were killed, or children who were killed. She referred to 
it as a genocide. So, I want to be clear--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Sixty-two million.
    Mr. Raskin. I am sorry. Sixty-two million. Okay. So, it is 
10 times--and I have heard this also in anti-abortion rhetoric, 
10 times the Holocaust that took place in Europe against the 
Jews. Sixty-two million, what she described as our fellow human 
beings and children have been killed through abortion. Okay?
    I appreciate the moral clarity of her position. She says 
that under the Declaration; and we just heard another colleague 
invoke the Declaration, and of the Constitution that a fetus is 
a person within the meaning of Fifth Amendment and 14th 
Amendment due process. I confirmed that with her right after 
her testimony. She is from Maryland. I said, I just wanted to 
make sure that it is your position that a fetus is a person 
within the meaning of the Constitution. She said absolutely.
    Now, the reason this is so important is this: We have seen 
what the Texas law, which of course bans abortion in the vast 
majority of cases--it bans it for cases of rape, and she was 
very enthusiastic and proud of that fact. It bans in the case 
of incest, and it converts everything into this system of 
bounty hunting where people are essentially turned into 
vigilantes, and they can go and sue a doctor, nurse, or family 
Members who help a woman exercise her constitutional rights.
    So, what has happened in Texas, of course, is that people 
are flowing to Oklahoma, or they are going to Louisiana, or 
they are going to other parts of the country where they can get 
an abortion. I think some people feel well, that is okay. You 
will have this sort of checkerboard thing. Some States that 
will be like the Handmaid's Tale, but you will be able to flee 
to another State.
    If you listen to what Ms. Foster is saying and what a 
number of our colleagues are saying today is they want a 
situation where abortion at any point is considered murder 
under the Constitution of the United States. So, if you follow 
the logic of her argument, abortion could not be allowed in any 
case, in any State for rape or incest, or anything else because 
it would be like allowing a State government to permit the mass 
murder of a subpart of the population.
    I appreciate the honesty of that view. It is an extremist 
view, way outside of where the vast majority of the American 
people are. If you listen to the rhetoric of our colleagues, if 
you listen to the rhetoric of Ms. Foster, all of them seem to 
be saying that a fetus is a person within the meaning of our 
Constitution. Not only is it okay for Texas essentially to make 
it impossible for a woman to get an abortion, which is why they 
are all trying to get out on the Greyhound buses or whatever to 
Louisiana, Oklahoma, or California, but in every State it 
should be banned. If they do not believe that, then I think 
they should explain why they think it is okay for abortion to 
take place in some States and it is not murder, but in other 
States it is. If some of them are saying what certain people 
are saying, just let the States decide, I would like them to 
announce that they think it should be a right in the States 
that want to make it a right. It sounds to me like the new 
position of the Republican Party is that we should have a 
blanket ban on abortion across the land it is murder 
everywhere. That is the logic of the moral and constitutional 
position that they have advanced today.
    If I have got--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Roy?
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
    The one word that has been consistently missing from my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle today is heartbeat, 
because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not 
want to start with the concept of heartbeat. That is what this 
law is titled. That is what drove and motivated the people of 
Texas was to protect life when there was a heartbeat that was 
able to be identified.
    Every one of us in this room has a heartbeat. Every one of 
us knows the tie of a heartbeat to life. That is what is at the 
center of this whole conversation, but my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle do not want to start with that.
    If you look at--listen to what my colleague from Maryland 
just said, when he was starting from the proposition of what it 
means in terms of banning certain abortions at certain times 
or, as he was saying, a national ban, as he was hypothesizing. 
He is starting from the premise not from the starting place of 
life and trying to defend life, but from the standpoint of law 
with respect to our current abortion law. That is because my 
colleagues do not want to start with the concept of life 
because it is a messy business.
    As my colleague from Texas Mr. Gohmert described earlier, 
it is a messy business. There has been a lot of misinformation 
floating around about the Texas bill, right, saying that it is 
a flat-out ban on abortion, yet there have been still 2,000-
plus abortions in September after the law took effect. I do not 
think we have the data for October, yet. Two thousand-plus 
abortions. Now, I will acknowledge that it is an over a 50-
percent drop from the five-thousand-and-something abortions in 
August.
    The question I was going to ask of our Witness, who 
obviously is no longer here because we did not meet for two 
hours this morning, and now we are meeting at night and she was 
not able to be here--but what I was going to ask her is what 
conversation would she like to have with the 2,000-3,000 lives 
that will be walking this planet in September alone, the 2,000-
3,000 lives that will be walking this planet because of this 
bill?
    Now, I know my opponents on the other side of the aisle 
want to fixate on Roe or Casey. That is fine. We can have those 
legal debates. What we are talking about here are human beings 
and life. That is what is at the center of all this. The 
question becomes--and as my learned friend from Maryland talked 
about, he said the vast majority of--I think--the exact 
phrasing, but a nonviable fetus in the first trimester in the 
context of abortion law. Okay? Texans decided through their 
elected body in the State legislature to say that if there is a 
heartbeat detected, that life should be protected. That is what 
the people of Texas decided.
    Then, I hear all this sort of wailing and gnashing of teeth 
about the construct of the law, about how it is novel, yet this 
construct is very similar, for example, to a State law, say 
Colorado, telling a cake baker to bake a cake under Colorado 
law despite conflicting with a deeply-held religious belief of 
the baker, and then forcing the cake baker to decide whether to 
proceed in the face of possible private litigation, challenging 
his or her decision, and whatever that means in terms of cost 
and impact, and then find a way to litigate his or her First 
Amendment rights in State or Federal court. We act like this is 
some sort of novel concept, but it is not. This is a debate. 
This is the kind of thing you litigate, but you have got people 
in Texas saying hey, we think life is worth protecting.
    I would note, as I said before, that there were 2,000 
abortions in September. In Texas in 2020, 49,000, almost 49,000 
of the 54,000 roughly; I am rounding, abortions were less than 
10 weeks. What we are talking about here is saying that if 
there is a heartbeat, that we do everything we can to protect 
that living being.
    When you talk about vigilante justice, what we are talking 
about is the ability to go bring suit in defense of a life. 
That is what we are talking about. Nothing more; nothing less. 
It is everything.
    Again, I would reiterate, my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle will not want to, have not wanted to talk about 
the heartbeat because they know it undermines their position. I 
yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Jayapal?
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I think some of you know that I am one of the one in four 
women in America who has had an abortion. I testified about 
that recently. I first told my story two years ago when this 
rash of bills was starting to come up, and I told it after more 
than a decade. I actually had not even told my mother about it 
before I wrote an op-ed in the paper. For me it was actually a 
very difficult decision to make. It is not for everybody, and I 
do not think it should have to be.
    So, Mr. Roy, you are right. We have different starting 
places. I start with the Constitution. I start with the 
Constitution, and I start with the Constitutional right that I 
have to make choices about my own body. I, also, am very 
offended by the idea that anybody on your side would call me a 
murderer for making a choice about my health and my body that 
you cannot even begin to understand or know what I was dealing 
with. So, please do not be paternalistic towards us as we make 
choices that are our choices.
    Nobody knows the circumstances we go through. Nobody 
understands what we have to think about. By the way, nobody 
except us is actually--the pregnant person is actually the 
person that is affected along with anybody that we choose to 
bring in. You know what, I would like to leave protecting my 
health to my doctor and to me. I do not think that Ms. Pineiro, 
or I, or any other person who makes this constitutionally-
protected choice should be traumatized by being called a 
murderer. That is just outrageous in my mind.
    Professor Bridges, in your testimony and your answers to my 
colleagues you have spoken about the intersections of abortion, 
race, and poverty and how bans on the Constitutional right to 
abortion disproportionately affect women of color. Are these 
intersections part of the reason a pregnant person's 
Constitutional right to an abortion is treated as different and 
inferior to other Constitutional rights?
    Dr. Bridges. Absolutely. We live in a country of abortion 
exceptionalism where the fundamental right to terminate a 
pregnancy before viability is treated dramatically differently 
than the other fundamental rights that are found in the 
Constitution. The most glaring example of that, that abortion 
rights are treated differently, is the fact that SB 8 is in 
effect right now. The Supreme Court let a flagrantly 
unconstitutional law go into effect and two months later we're 
still dealing with the fallout from that.
    Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Pineiro, thank you for your testimony. 
Thank you for being here. I think it is probably impossibly 
difficult to listen to what has been said today, and I thank 
you for your courage and for your grace.
    Another issue that often overlaps with reproductive justice 
is health coverage. You highlighted in your powerful testimony 
that, because of the Hyde Amendment, your abortion care was not 
covered. Thinking about the patients that your fund serves and 
your personal experience, how are communities of color, in 
particular, disproportionately impacted by restrictions on 
abortion funding by health insurance programs such as Medicaid?
    Ms. Pineiro. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman, 
and I appreciate the solidarity here. It is not easy to hear 
the inflammatory rhetoric. As a survivor, as someone who has 
had an abortion here, I am consistently offended.
    This is not new. This is what people who have abortions 
deal with. This is what, quote ``sidewalk counselors'' unquote, 
are yelling at patients who are going in to get healthcare.
    Just on the Hyde Amendment, I think it's ironic that we 
spent the day talking about abortion restrictions alleging 
supporting women and their families. If we were to end the Hyde 
Amendment, I would hope that a priority could be to fund 
programs for women and their families, so that clients like the 
ones I see don't have to choose between feeding their family 
and having an abortion.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Ms. Pineiro.
    Dr. Moayedi, as an abortion provider in Texas, you see 
firsthand the medical harms of these abortion bans. What new 
challenges will patients and providers face now that Texas has 
authorized private people to become vigilantes and patrol 
reproductive health-care?
    Dr. Moayedi. Well, I'm seeing it right now. We have people 
that are critically ill and pregnant and need an abortion to 
save their life, and we are having delayed care. We are going 
to see a dramatic increase in maternal mortality in our State, 
as people are forced to continue pregnancy. We know that 
pregnancy is at least 10 times--childbirth is at least 10 times 
more dangerous than abortion care, and you are more likely to 
die. That is even more true in Texas with our maternal 
morbidity and mortality rate. So, I am already seeing the 
devastating effects in my community, and I expect that this 
will be getting worse.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I just would ask that my colleagues stop calling 
us murderers. I do not appreciate that.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. I agree with you.
    The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Bishop?
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This is a most extraordinary hearing about something that 
it is unclear to me why this body, this Committee, is taking it 
up. It seems inappropriate in the week that the United States 
Supreme Court is undertaking solemn judicial, independent 
consideration of the law in Texas.
    I think I can't fail to comment on one aspect of where we 
are. I would submit that there are two reasons that Texas' 
Senate Bill 8 is so impactful, unusually impactful. First, is 
that the exercise of the right to abortion depends upon at all 
times a huge moneymaking industry carrying it out that will put 
its financial interests first. Second, that industry knows that 
it can never rest secure in the proclamation of a right to kill 
another utterly innocent human being. It is simply an untenable 
claim. It is as untenable as when the Supreme Court of the 
United States in Scott v. Sandford that freed slaves of African 
heritage could not become citizens of the United States or 
enjoy the rights, privileges, and immunities thereof.
    It will never be a settled issue until the humanity of the 
unborn child is recognized and protected. This is a picture of 
a child 12-weeks gestation. Her fist is clenched. It is a 
little girl. It is not just some anonymous picture. She now is 
a thriving child. Her hand and arm is visible. She is a human. 
She cannot be disregarded. It is not possible for us to pretend 
that she does not exist. She exists.
    Dred Scott was settled law at one point, and it awaited the 
turn of history for that to be vindicated. That is exactly the 
situation here.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Demings?
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    First, as a Member from Florida, Ms. Pineiro, I want to 
thank you so much--first, welcome to this hearing--but, also, I 
thank you so much for your testimony today. People may think 
they know your story, but today you have been able to tell it. 
They may not care about your story, but I care. I thank you for 
being an advocate on behalf of women and girls around this 
nation.
    I spent 27 years in law enforcement, and I want to talk 
about constitutional rights. Today, I not only speak as a 
Member of Congress, I also want to speak as a police officer, 
as a police chief.
    As an enforcer of the law, I took an oath that I would 
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. In my 
law enforcement career, you can imagine I have seen and 
experienced much--the joys and pains of life. I have worked 
rallies and demonstrations by the Ku Klux Klan, the Neo-Nazis, 
and other extremist groups. I have heard names and been called 
names, like coon, savage, and I've heard the ``N'' word more 
times than I care to acknowledge.
    As these extremists hurled their racial slurs and insults, 
as I worked the rally to provide security for them, as a law 
enforcement officer who remembered the oath that I took, I 
would have risked my life to stop anyone who tried to do them 
harm. Of course, I did not agree with what they were saying or 
why they were demonstrating, but I took an oath to protect 
their right to say it and to demonstrate.
    The United States Constitution is a stubborn document. 
Rights are stubborn, too, even the rights of women. Roe v. Wade 
is clearly established and well-settled law, and its violation 
is blatantly unconstitutional.
    I have also, as I end my remarks--I don't have any 
questions today--but, I have also worked and seen, as a law 
enforcement officer, the threats and harassment of women and 
teenage girls and providers. We have certainly had to work 
cases of providers who gave their lives as they were trying to 
provide the service.
    So, I don't know how much longer this debate is going to go 
on, but we live in the United States of America. The supreme 
law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. As long as I am here, 
I will continue to protect and defend it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Ms. Spartz?
    Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Interesting to me how far we are drifting apart. As my 
colleagues, and my Democratic colleagues used to say, abortion 
should be rare; supported the Hyde Amendment on a bipartisan 
basis, but take very more extreme pro-abortion ideologies, and 
we can see it in some of the laws like the State of New York.
    I wanted to share just a little bit. I have a unique 
experience. I grew up in the Soviet Union. Actually, the Soviet 
Union was the first country in Europe that in the 1920s 
legalized abortion under Lenin, and it was a country where life 
didn't matter; individual life didn't matter. It was all 
collective, all for them, collective responsibility. Everything 
is just collective as a group, not as individuals.
    So, when I came here, I was very inspired and impressed by 
such an intrinsically valuable value of human life that is 
really embedded, including in our fine documents. Our 
Declaration of Independence talks about God-given rights, and 
rights to life is the first one and it is the most important, 
where you matter as an individual. It is very deep with the 
respect for life, all rights to life for born and unborn. It is 
so American, and I just very differentiate it from a lot of 
other countries around the world.
    Since we don't have a Witness--I just generally was very 
surprised at the timing of this hearing. I might just ask, 
since we have another scholar, Ms. Bridges, here. So, as a 
scholar, you point out, actually, in your testimony that Texas 
law disproportionately impacts Black women, women of color. If 
we are going to talk about racial injustice and Black Lives 
Matter/All Lives Matter, then it seems like some issues of this 
bill are not only for the community, but this I'm not going to 
ask you because you and I have different disagreements on that, 
and we will never agree.
    My question would be for you, we have a State legislature 
that has an ability to regulate abortions. We have a Supreme 
Court that can rule on that and can decide if something is 
unconstitutional. We actually have three cases that the Supreme 
Court is going to review. One of them just was heard on Monday.
    So, is it in your views or there any reason why this body 
should hold this hearing for any reason than just exert 
improper political influence over an independent branch of 
government, our Judicial branch? So, I would have a question 
for you. Do you see any reason why we should be even doing it 
right at this moment?
    Dr. Bridges. Yeah. Thank you for your question. I really 
appreciate it.
    First, it's Professor Bridges or Dr. Bridges.
    Second, you said that State legislatures have enacted this 
law; this is a democratically elected law. I think we should 
drop a footnote next to that because it is unclear whether this 
is a democratically elected law. Texas has the most 
restrictive, one of the most restrictive voting rights, voting 
regulations. So, I would be skeptical that all the people were 
represented in this law.
    Third, you're absolutely right that the judiciary is called 
upon to interpret the Constitution and protect rights. We are 
here today--thank you for asking that question--we are here 
today because the judiciary did not do that. The judiciary did 
not follow its own established precedents. Its own established 
precedents would have led it to enjoin a flagrantly 
unconstitutional law. It did not do that. In fact, its own 
established precedence would lead it to preserve the status 
quo. It did not do that. Its own established precedence--
    Ms. Spartz. I think that--yes, I don't think this was a 
precedent.
    Dr. Bridges. Its own established precedence--
    Ms. Spartz. Yes, because, actually, they are reviewing the 
procedure and they are going to rule on the procedures.
    Dr. Bridges. Its own established precedence--absolutely.
    Ms. Spartz. They have three cases right now. They are going 
to look at the procedures of the law, because it was, 
actually--there is not much precedent. It was very different 
law. The Supreme Court two cases to look at Texas, and it has a 
Mississippi case. There are a whole lot of cases in the Supreme 
Court. So, why we should be discussing this now? Is there any 
reason you see to discuss it now, except to influence the 
decision of the Judicial branch, which is an independent branch 
and equal to us?
    Dr. Bridges. We should be talking about this case because 
procedural rules have substantive consequences.
    Ms. Spartz. All right. They didn't rule on that.
    Dr. Bridges. Second, the concept--
    Ms. Spartz. That is what the problem is. They just convened 
that, right?
    Dr. Bridges. The mere failure to rule on the procedure--
    Ms. Spartz. They are going to have two cases. They are 
going to rule on procedures. Two cases they are going to 
decide. They just had arguments on Monday.
    Dr. Bridges. In the meantime, the rights of Texans are 
being infringed. A flagrantly unconstitutional law is in 
effect.
    Ms. Spartz. The Court hasn't made any decisions.
    So, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    It is rather bizarre that at this late date, 40-some-odd 
years after Roe v. Wade that we have to have a hearing on this, 
and that the harmful effects of SB 8 have almost immediately 
manifested themselves in completely halting access to abortion 
for women in Texas who are not like wealthy or connected.
    It has also burdened the reproductive healthcare systems of 
other States that have chosen not to violate the Constitution. 
In doing so, this law has created a framework that deliberately 
seeks to violate a women's constitutional freedom to decide 
when and whether to become a parent, based on her own unique 
circum-stances.
    SB 8 does so by creating a tortured legal fiction to avoid 
judicial review, and in the process, threatens other 
constitutional rights. Just as a baseline, the decision to have 
an abortion is deeply personal. We, as legislators, must ensure 
that anyone who becomes pregnant can access a full range of 
safe medical care, free from fear, coercion, or lawmakers who 
want to insert themselves into a medical practice.
    We have heard several stories of why people may choose to 
access abortion care. In my professional life, I have had two 
clients who faced the choice of whether to carry a pregnancy to 
term or not. Both were young women who had a first child when 
they were in their teens and had suffered abuse at the hands of 
family Members. They struggled to keep themselves and their 
children housed and fed, and when they were victimized by much 
older men, became pregnant again. They each had their own 
personal reasons for choosing not to have another child, 
including compelling medical, financial, and emotional reasons.
    One lived in Pennsylvania and was able to make the best 
decision for her circumstances. She chose not to have another 
child at that time, and as a result, was able to leave the 
abusive relationship which had caused the pregnancy, finish 
school, get a good job, marry, and have two more children with 
her husband.
    The other lived in Texas, and this was before SB 8 took 
effect, but not before the State had imposed some of the most 
restrictive anti-abortion laws in the country. She couldn't 
afford to travel or pay for an abortion, and she was forced to 
bear a child, although she and the child suffered preventable 
physical injury and great economic harm.
    So, these are just two of the stories. We have heard other 
stories. It pains me that we need to share personal stories 
with private reasons to demonstrate the endless array of 
reasons why someone might choose not to avail themselves of 
having another child. These stories shouldn't have to be told 
over and over again.
    Professor Bridges, I just wanted to dig a little bit into 
some of the legal basis for this crazy SB 8 law. So, as I 
understand it, the Texas legislature has decided to make having 
an abortion illegal in Texas but has outsourced enforcement of 
that from the State to private citizens who can sue anyone who 
has an abortion or helps someone to have an abortion, and get 
$10,000 from them.
    This seems really tortured, and it also seems to implicate 
other rights. So, for example, if we were to have a State that 
decided to outlaw evangelical Christians--I think practicing 
your First Amendment religious rights is a pretty clear 
constitutional rule. So, if the State of Georgia, say, said no 
more evangelical Christians; it is illegal to practice that 
religion in the State of Georgia, and the State is not going to 
do anything about it, but anyone anywhere--it doesn't matter if 
you are in Georgia or anywhere else--you can sue anyone who is 
a practicing Christian in Georgia for a million dollars. Isn't 
that what this law is trying to do in Texas, and what is the 
problem with that?
    Dr. Bridges. Absolutely. So, we're here today because the 
Supreme Court has allowed Texas to offer all the States a 
blueprint for violating constitutional rights. No 
constitutional right is safe. This begins at abortion, but who 
knows where it will end? The First Amendment free exercise 
right; the 14th Amendment right to same sex marriage; the 14th 
Amendment right to consensual sexual contact; the Second 
Amendment right to bear arms--no constitutional right is safe, 
and that is why we're here today.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    I think the very structure of this law should give people 
pause and be more than solid grounds for why it should never 
have taken effect, should not be a model for other states, and 
should be promptly overturned.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Bentz?
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I join Mr. Roy, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, and Ranking 
Member Jordan in expressing my regret that Ms. Foster is not 
here to elaborate upon her remarks regarding additional options 
for women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy. I 
regret that she is not here to speak to the offerings of the 
thousands of resource centers across this United States. I 
regret that she is not here to further elaborate and emphasize 
that life is not frivolous. She is not here.
    So, with that, Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to 
Mr. Johnson from Louisiana.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman from 
Oregon.
    Ms. Pineiro, you are a board member of the Central Florida 
Women's Emergency Fund, which strongly supports legalized 
abortion, right?
    Ms. Pineiro. That is incorrect.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay. What does that organization 
do?
    Ms. Pineiro. I'm the Co-Executive Director of Florida 
Access Network.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay. Well, our hearing outline 
said other. So, the Action Network strongly supports legalized 
abortion, right?
    Ms. Pineiro. Correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Help me understand the position 
of your organization. These are simple yes-or-no questions.
    Is it okay to murder a 10-year-old child?
    Ms. Pineiro. No one should be forced to remain pregnant if 
they don't want to.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is it okay to murder a 10-year-
old child, yes or no?
    Ms. Pineiro. I am deeply offended that you would call me a 
murderer.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I'm not calling you a murderer, 
ma'am. I'm asking you a question. Is it okay to murder a 10-
year-old child? This is about your organization's position. 
Would they say yes or no?
    Ms. Pineiro. My organization's position is that no one 
should be forced to remain pregnant if they don't want to. Any 
abortion restrictions are--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay, okay. Let me answer the 
question for you. I'm assuming that you do not advocate for the 
murder of children. Okay. What about a toddler? I assume you 
would say it is not okay to murder a toddler, either, a 2-year-
old. What about a newborn. Let me ask you this: Is it the 
position of the organization, are you for partial birth 
abortion? Is that the position of the organization? Would you 
support that?
    Ms. Pineiro. What my organization is for is to support the 
people who need abortion care who are lied to when they are 
sent to alleged pregnancy resource centers that lie to the 
patients--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay. Would that--excuse me just 
a second. Just a second. Would that apply--
    Ms. Pineiro. --and tell them--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Would that apply to a woman who 
is nine months pregnant?
    Ms. Pineiro. I disagree with the premise of your question.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Would you support the abortion of 
a late-term unborn child?
    Ms. Pineiro. Anybody should have, should have the right to 
have an abortion at any time for any reason.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Anytime? Okay. That's what I 
need. So, here's the thing. I'm just trying to understand the 
logical fallacy. So, if we would not support--and I mean this 
sincerely and this is not for you personally; I'm talking about 
the organization. You support an advocacy organization.
    If it is not okay to take the life of a small child outside 
the womb, why is it okay to take the life of a small child nine 
inches up the birth canal inside the womb? What is the 
distinction? Help me understand the distinction of that.
    Ms. Pineiro. I don't understand the question.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You would not support the murder 
of a small child, right? No one would. No civilized person 
would. Why do we support the taking of a life of a child right 
before they are delivered?
    Ms. Pineiro. No civilized person should support forced 
pregnancy.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Does abortion take the life of 
something that is alive?
    Ms. Pineiro. No one should be forced to remain pregnant 
against their will.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Ma'am, you are not answering my 
questions.
    Let me ask the doctor on this screen. Is it okay--or let me 
ask you this: Does abortion kill something that is alive, take 
the life of something that is alive?
    Dr. Moayedi. Sir, the way that you are asking these 
questions actually intentionally invite violence and harassment 
to both of us, to all of us.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I'm sorry, that is an absurd 
response. You are a medical doctor. Tell me if there is an 
unborn child in the womb or not. Are we killing something that 
is alive? When you dismember something in the womb, is that a 
human being or not? It is living being, yes or no?
    Dr. Moayedi. I am here to talk about medical care.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, this is a direct question 
about medical care, ma'am. You positioned yourself as an expert 
on the issue. Are we taking a life or not? Is it a life, yes or 
no?
    Dr. Moayedi. What you are discussing is not the reality of 
how abortion care is delivered in this country.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. If we were in a courtroom, I 
would say that is nonresponsive. I think we all know why you 
don't want to respond to that, because the obvious fact here is 
that you are taking a human life. It is a small human life. It 
is a human being.
    Let me ask you, Doctor, should abortion be allowed because 
of the sex of the pre-born child, in your medical opinion?
    Dr. Moayedi. I do not believe that there should be any 
restrictions on the bodily autonomy of--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay. All right. Hold on. So, if 
someone gets a pregnancy test and they say it is a little girl, 
and I want a little boy, it is okay to abort that child?
    Dr. Moayedi. I have never seen a pregnancy test that tells 
you the sex.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Would it be okay or not?
    Dr. Moayedi. I have never--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. If someone has an ultrasound and 
they know they have one sex and they want to abort it, is that 
okay?
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Ms. Garcia?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I will just note that no one 
answered the questions.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Ms. Garcia?
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to all the Witnesses here today. I know that it 
has been a long day and thank you for your patience and thank 
you for allowing yourselves to be questioned by all of us.
    Especially to you, Ms. Pineiro, for just sharing your 
deeply personal story. I know it still breaks your heart to 
have gone through both of those abortions and the reasons that 
you had to. So, thank you for sharing.
    Women's freedom to choose is under attack in our country. 
Simply put, politicians and the government have no place 
controlling women's freedom to choose their reproductive care. 
They should not be in the business of controlling women's 
bodies, period.
    The Texas law--and just for the record, I am a native 
Texas, and I am also Catholic--the Texas law has already had 
devastating effects on Texas women, especially women with low 
income, Black and Latino women suffering the most. Many have 
crossed State lines to access abortion. In a sense, some of 
these women are fortunate because they have the resources and 
the logistical knowhow to seek an abortion outside of Texas.
    Consider, for instance, a woman living in my district who 
would have to drive 10 hours to get to a State where she could 
access reproductive healthcare. She would have to make the 
drive alone or risk a loved one being sued for helping her.
    According to a filed amicus brief by Planned Parenthood 
with the U.S. Circuit of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, one woman 
said she is concerned with taking time off work to travel for 
the abortion because it could affect her job. She said she 
struggles to cover expenses and lives paycheck to paycheck. She 
considered using a ride service taxi, but the idea is scary 
because she knows she would be in a car alone with a stranger, 
as she is coming off anesthesia. This is appalling that women 
have to have these considerations.
    In South Texas, where I grew up, many Latinas and 
immigrants already fear deportation and face huge barriers to 
abortion due to long distance and travel restrictions. Another 
woman in Houston who only speaks Spanish shared her concern 
that she had not been to another State and could not understand 
why, still cannot understand why, they have to leave Texas for 
an abortion or what would be required when they get to another 
State. This is heartbreaking.
    Just a few weeks ago, I visited my local Planned Parenthood 
health center and heard countless other stories about Texas 
women who are resorting to self-help, including drinking 
abortion tea that they found on the internet. Dare we say that 
many of these results, may end up in backroom-alley abortions 
and maybe even the use of hangers, as we saw in the past.
    This is totally unacceptable. We trust women to know what 
they need and how they come to this decision with their 
families, their faith, and their future in mind and Americans 
agree.
    Mr. Chair, I have an exhibit here that I ask unanimous 
consent to be entered into the record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

      
                       MS. GARCIA FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Garcia. It is the results of a Gallup poll which says 
Americans still oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. Nearly 6 in 10 
Americans do not want Roe v. Wade overturned. Texans, too, 
agree.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    Ms. Garcia. A recent poll in April of 2021 says that a 
majority of Texans are against new abortion restrictions or 
oppose provisions in SB 8--again, a majority of Texans, April, 
just a few months ago.
    So, the fact remains that this bill has had devastating 
effects on women and will continue to do that.
    So, I want to start with the doctor. Again, thank you for 
going through all the other things that Texas does to restrict 
abortions.
    Are you seeing more and more women going out of State, 
particularly minority women? Have you seen any impact or 
effects of any self-help that they may have done on their own?
    Dr. Moayedi. I am. I travel to Oklahoma to provide abortion 
care as well. Prior to SB 8, maybe about 10-15 percent of my 
patients in Oklahoma would be from North Texas; last week, 80 
percent--80 percent. Some as far as Galveston and Texas City 
drove to get to Oklahoma City. So, I'm already seeing the 
devastating effects.
    Thankfully, we have options to self-manage abortion with 
mife-pristone and misoprostol that can be safe, but the option 
is limited for many people.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you. I see I just have eight seconds, and 
I wanted to ask you, Ms. Pineiro, is there anything else you 
wanted to add about your experiences?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. [Presiding.] The gentlelady's time--the 
gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman from Utah is recognized, Mr. 
Owens.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Ms. Chair and Witnesses who are 
appearing before our Committee today.
    I, first, want to take a moment to say that my constituents 
from Utah have some serious concerns about the Department of 
Justice suing Texas because the Biden Administration doesn't 
like one of its laws. Utah signed an amicus brief in United 
States v. Texas. I would like to request unanimous consent to 
enter that brief into the record.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]


                        MR. OWENS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Owens. I would like to share my perspective on the 
devastating impact abortion has had on my community. In June of 
this year, I wrote an op-ed on why Planned Parenthood is the 
greatest threat to Black lives in America. I would like to 
request unanimous consent to enter that full piece into the 
record.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
     

                        MR. OWENS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Owens. Here's a few highlights. A highlight in a recent 
weekend edition of The New York Times was stark, on the head of 
Planned Parenthood, ``We're done making excuses for our 
founder.''
    The author of this article, Alexis Miguel Johnson, said 
that her organization, the largest provider of abortion in the 
United States and perhaps the world, would have to reckon with 
Margaret Sanger and her association with the White supremacist 
groups and eugenics.
    It's important to acknowledge Sanger's views on Planned 
Parenthood's use of birth control to eliminate those she 
considered nothing but human weeds.
    What does targeting race as human weeds look like? Black 
women represent six percent of America's population yet make up 
40 percent of women who end up on the operation table of a 
wealthy abortionist.
    Twenty million Black babies have been exterminated over the 
last 40 years, represents 40 percent of my race as viewed by 
the left as nothing but human weeds.
    In a civilized country, the death of 40 million Black 
innocent babies in combination with over 60 million babies of 
all race and colors would be considered genocide.
    The left considers this medical care, and the death of all 
these innocents is love and blessings. The left preaches us 
about equity. Where's the equity when the lowest percentage of 
Americans are killed at a higher rate than the majority race?
    Today in the U.S., the abortion rate of African American 
women is over three times that of White women. From 2000-2010, 
African Americans as a percentage of the total U.S. population 
dropped one-seventh percent. We have a party that actually 
believes that stopping the killing of Black babies at a rate 
three times more than White babies is not fair to Black 
mothers.
    No, my friends, Black babies are not human weeds, and our 
communities should celebrate--should not celebrate throwing 
them away. Black mothers would love their children as much as 
White mothers if they were only taught at a young age that it's 
not cool to abort them, if they were taught that it is not 
liberation and should not go--liberating them from going 
through the hassle and innocence of being a mother.
    Twenty million children destroyed in 40 years, how many of 
them if allowed to live would have solved our climate crisis? 
Been the next Martin Luther King to unite all races? Another 
Ben Carson, leading our nation against the fight of cancer and 
heart disease? What a crushing loss to our national community 
and well-being.
    No, losing our precious babies for billions in profit to an 
abortion industry is not love and blessings to the mother and 
lives, to the lives of millions that have been destroyed, 
mothers and babies.
    Justice Clarence Thomas may have put it best when he wrote 
that, ``technological advances have only heightened the 
eugenics potential for abortion, as abortion now can be used to 
eliminate children with unwanted characteristics.''
    This law and other laws like it promote the State's 
compelling interest of preventing abortion from becoming a tool 
of modern-day eugenics.
    I'm the father of six children and 15 grandchildren. My 
life has been one, like everyone in here, has gone up and down, 
from being a Super Bowl champion to losing everything, going 
through bankruptcy, living in a one-bedroom basement apartment 
in Brooklyn with four kids.
    We chose to have another two because we believe in the 
blessings of the eternal life of families. I'm going to give a 
message to those who are listening. Do not listen to the dark 
message of hopelessness. The tough times you might go through 
are temporary.
    The life that you give to your children, which you build as 
a family, is eternal. There is nothing like the memories I now 
share and believe that it's not playing on a football field 
that makes a difference today.
    It's watching my six kids, my 15 grandkids, how tight and 
how close we are, how much enjoy our company and the pride I 
have in what they've done to raise their kids. That's the 
legacy of moms and dads.
    That's the legacy that many moms will never ever have 
because they've been taught that killing a baby is cool. Many 
dads will not have because they've been taught it's better to 
go to an abortion center than man up and take care of their 
child.
    Vote for life. Live your life. I give back my time.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to you 
for being here today for such a lengthy bit of time to just 
really discuss this serious attack on our constitutional 
rights. I can't tell you how much this means to me.
    Generations of women have fought for their place in 
society. They fought for the right to vote. They fought for a 
seat in the university classroom, a seat in the boardroom and a 
seat in our own government, and they fought for the freedom to 
make our own decisions about our bodies, health, and families.
    Generations of women secured these gains so that we could 
build on their efforts toward a just and equitable society. We 
cannot allow the work to be undone. We've seen attempts to 
legislate away women's personal decisions time and time again.
    These efforts always caused the greatest harm to women of 
color and those without resources, as we've discussed over and 
over again today, those who face the greatest obstacles to 
traveling long distances just to get the care that they need.
    This attack also poses a grave new risk that any of our 
constitutional rights could become the focus of a strange 
system of vigilante justice, a system in which a neighbor is 
pitted against neighbor, eroding the sacred trust that binds 
our communities, and I am deeply troubled by what this law 
could mean for the constitutional right to abortion and all our 
constitutional rights if this vigilante scheme is allowed to 
continue and be replicated.
    I'm so pleased today that we are able to shed light on the 
experiences of people in Texas that are already--this is 
already happening to them right now, and that we will continue 
to see this spread throughout the country if our courts are not 
going to uphold the Constitution.
    Before we get started today, I just want to know, Professor 
Bridges, is there anything that you would like to respond to?
    Dr. Bridges. Oh, my God, thank you so much for the 
opportunity to respond. I would love to respond to some of the 
comments that were just made by Representative Owens.
    He speaks about the higher rates of abortion among Black 
people. He doesn't mention the reasons for that. The reasons 
for the higher rates of abortion are not because Black people 
have been taught that abortion is cool.
    The reason for the higher rates of abortion is due to 
poverty, is due to the lack of access to contraception. It's 
due to the fact that people are not being educated about sex 
and pregnancy in public schools.
    It's due to the inaccessibility of healthcare. So those are 
the reasons for the higher rates of abortion among Black 
people. The suggestion that Black people are terminating 
pregnancies because we think it's cool suggests that he thinks 
that Black women are stupid.
    I assure you, Black people are not stupid. They're using 
abortion care to exact some modicum of control over their 
lives, especially when they're mired in structural conditions 
that make it impossible for them to control their lives 
otherwise.
    He didn't mention at all what happens when we restrict 
abortion. We force birth. People are ignoring that throughout 
this entire hearing. We're forcing birth.
    Particularly, we need to pay attention to the fact that 
we're forcing Black people to give birth in a country in which 
we have terrible rates of maternal mortality compared to our 
peers and we have racial disparities in maternal mortality, 
meaning that three to four times as many Black people should 
expect to die during pregnancy, childbirth, or shortly 
thereafter.
    So, we're forcing Black people to engage in a task that is 
dangerous to their lives.
    Finally, we live in a country in which poverty is defined 
as neglect and that Black people can expect to have their 
children taken away from them by the child welfare system, by 
the family regulation system.
    This is a cruel set of circumstances that we're creating 
where we force birth, we force people to engage in a task that 
it's dangerous to them--Black people to engage in a task that 
is dangerous to them, and then we have them create families 
that we so easily dissolve through the family regulation 
system.
    So, I think it's important to understand all that context 
and not to attribute the rates of abortion among Black people 
to we think it's cool.
    Ms. McBath. I want to thank you very much for expanding 
upon that and telling us the truth of the nature of what's 
really happening in the country.
    Dr. Moayedi, your testimony notes that SB 8 will have 
consequences for people with highly desired pregnancies who 
have pregnancy complications. Can you expand on those 
complications that might lead a doctor to discuss the option of 
abortion even when a pregnancy is wanted?
    Dr. Moayedi. Yes. So, even at maybe 15-16 weeks, a bag of 
water can break the amniotic fluid. This is a condition where 
the treatment is--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. McClintock is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I've spent 35 years either in the California State 
legislature or here in the Congress, and this is a debate that 
is very familiar. It's been going on without resolution on 
either side all those years.
    I've always been pro-life. I've always voted that way. I 
think with respect to the Texas bill, I'd prefer a standard be 
the heartbeat and brain activity. At least the Texas standard 
gives us a rational and science-based standard to begin 
discussing.
    That said, my personal opinion is the Texas law is bad law. 
I think it's very dangerous to enforce criminal law and civil 
courts to replace public prosecutors with freelance litigators.
    Criminal courts are there for a reason. They require a 
higher standard of proof than the civil courts. They require 
unanimous jury verdicts. That's to assure that if we are going 
to use government power to injure someone, either to deprive 
them of their freedom or their property, it has to be done with 
these standards and safeguards.
    So, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the opponents of the 
bill. The enforcement mechanisms of this law are, to my eye, 
too clever by half. That is the matter that the Supreme Court 
is considering right now, and rightly so.
    We may like their decision. We may not like their decision. 
If we don't like it, we are the Congress. It's our job to 
produce legislation to address our objections.
    It is not clear to me what we're doing here today except 
trying to bring inappropriate pressure to the court or to 
politicize its deliberations.
    I, frankly, don't have any questions of the Witnesses 
before us because they appear to be incapable of responding in 
any other fashion other than repeating predetermined sound 
bites.
    If Mr. Owens would like to have another crack at it, I'll 
be happy to yield the balance of my time to him.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you so much. Just wanted to make a couple 
comments.
    This is the first time in my lifetime heard that Black 
people having a family is dangerous. I have a feeling all races 
deal with the same issues when having babies and overcoming 
obstacles. It's called life. I've never heard that it's 
dangerous to have a baby.
    I think part of this is the low expectations that so many 
people have of my race. It bothers me tremendously.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Owens. No. I'm sorry. Let me just finish up. I'm sorry.
    I want to continue to repeat because I know people have not 
heard this, I lived in a time when my race was literally one of 
the best, most progressive and productive races of our country.
    We led our country in the growth of the middle class, men 
matriculating from college, men committed to marriage. A Black 
woman could expect to be married before--in higher rates than 
White women until 1970. That's the environment. Believe me, in 
those days abortion was not prevalent in my race because it was 
expected men to take care of their families.
    That's right, it was not prevalent in my race in the 1960s. 
I was there. I know that. Okay. Anyway, so I'm sorry, I didn't 
mean to have this exchange. It's interesting when we have 
facts, we have experience, and people who have no clue are 
experts.
    So, I just want to say this, my friends. We have options. 
When it's being hopeful that we overcome obstacles, having a 
belief that our kids are precious, that our legacy be put in 
place and in a way that our name will be a good name, we can be 
proud of our kids.
    I'll tell you something I find interesting is how very 
wealthy people do not even consider abortion. Very wealthy 
people love their kids, and they will have their kids as they 
tell the rest of the society--the poor--how they should stay 
hopeless and kill their kids.
    Let me just say this. If we're going to ever get our family 
back, it comes down to loving the family unit. It comes down to 
us deciding that it's worth the price to do whatever we can to 
save, to work, to sacrifice, like every other race has done 
before now, and realize that those kids growing up will love 
themselves because they learned--they see what it is to be 
loved in their household.
    We are having problems in our family right now, the Black 
family, because kids are growing up realizing they have no 
wealth--they have no worth. They're told early how easy it is 
and how cool it is to have abortions. If they don't want to 
really deal with it, Planned Parenthood, they'll take that 
issue off your shoulders in a heartbeat, of course, full price.
    Let's back to understanding that our children are gifts 
from God, period, and if we are given the opportunity to work 
our very best to help them, support them to raise them, we'll 
get help from God to do just that, and our country will come 
back in a big, big way.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields back.
    I yield myself just a moment to indicate that the highest 
maternal mortality is among women of color, particularly 
African Americans.
    Mr. McClintock. A point of order. A point of order, Madam 
Chair. On whose time is the Chair speaking?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mine, to correct the record. I'd like to 
yield to the gentleman, Mr. Stanton, for five minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. You don't have time, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Stanton. I want to thank our Witnesses for joining us 
here today and your patience with a long day up here on Capitol 
Hill. Your testimony today is crucial for the work of this 
Committee and for our Congress.
    Every person deserves access to reproductive healthcare 
that is safe and affordable. It is a fundamental constitutional 
right recognized by the United States Supreme Court now for 
nearly 50 years.
    Unfortunately, since Roe v. Wade was decided, too many 
State governments across our nation have set their sights on 
eliminating this constitutional right. In States like mine, in 
Arizona, legislatures and governors have chipped away at it, 
inserting their own personal views into conversations between a 
woman and her doctor and setting up roadblock after roadblock.
    In Arizona, to obtain an abortion the State law requires 
people to visit their doctor twice 24 hours apart to be read a 
government-mandated script and obtain an ultrasound, all 
obstacles that do not prioritize health or safety.
    What's more, Arizona is one of nine States that still has 
pre-Roe abortion ban on the books. Now, emboldened by justices 
appointed to the Supreme Court by the previous Administration, 
some States have gone even further, attempting to effectively 
ban abortion completely.
    That's what happened in Texas where Senate Bill 8 has 
sought to see these fundamental rights stripped away and in 
Mississippi where the legislature has passed a facially 
unconstitutional law with the expressed intent of challenging 
Roe.
    These are laws that affect every State because I have grave 
concerns that the protections of Roe and its progeny may be 
erased by the Supreme Court. It's one of the reasons that I 
cosponsored and voted for the Women's Health Protection Act, 
which would enshrine a woman's right to choose in Federal 
statute.
    What we know is that these anti-choice laws 
disproportionately affect low-income communities and 
communities of color. If Roe were overturned, Arizona would 
become one of several States where abortion was outlawed and my 
constituents would no longer have access to the reproductive 
healthcare that is their right.
    I have a question for Dr. Moayedi.
    Doctor, how do excessive restrictions force providers to go 
against their expert medical judgment and prevent them from 
providing the very best care possible to their patients?
    Dr. Moayedi. Thank you so much for that question. I have so 
many examples of how these restrictions impact evidence-based 
care.
    So, in Texas we have a law that requires that I provide 
medication abortion per the FDA label. There is no other area 
of medicine where a State law requires following the FDA label. 
This becomes problematic because the second medication used in 
medication abortion, misoprostol, can be taken in different 
ways.
    The FDA label says that it has to be placed in the sides of 
the cheeks, but that medication can actually be swallowed, it 
can be placed under the tongue, or can be placed in the vagina 
and also works in the process.
    Because of that law, when I have patients with unique 
medical conditions that might prevent them from taking that 
medication orally, ordinarily, I would recommend that they take 
that medication vaginally, and when I practiced in Hawaii 
that's what I would do. I would tell them to take the 
medication vaginally.
    So, for example, if someone has Crohn's disease or IBS, 
they might not want to take it orally. They would take it 
vaginally. In Texas, I can't tell them to do the best thing for 
their health in that process because the State restricts 
evidence-based care. So, that's one example right there.
    The State has just passed or the Fifth Circuit has upheld a 
ban on second trimester procedures, and so now we--once, 
hopefully, SB 8 is overturned, the State actually tells me how 
to operate.
    So, there's nowhere else in my gynecologic practice where 
the State would tell me that you need to do the hysterectomy 
like this, that you should put the clamp here and you should do 
the incision there.
    That's not how we practice medicine at all. Now, I'm at 
risk for a criminal penalty for doing a procedure in the wrong 
way, the way that the State doesn't want me to do. This doesn't 
make any sense.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you. I really appreciate that answer. I 
have 30 seconds left.
    Professor Bridges, I do want to give you one additional 
opportunity to respond to anything one of my colleagues may 
have said earlier that you would like to respond to.
    Dr. Bridges. Yes. Thank you again for the opportunity.
    I would just encourage Representative Owens to Google 
racial disparities in maternal mortality and morbidity. I've 
actually written an article about that. It's in the NYU Law 
Review. It gives you a lot of information about how it's 
dangerous to undergo childbirth.
    I would just like to just note for the record that there 
were a lot of fact-free claims that Representative Owens made--
wealthier people don't have abortions because wealthier people 
love their children. So, it's just the fact-free level of these 
claims were remarkable.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Professor. I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for--
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank all our 
testifiers today. What patience you have shown for a very long 
day with a very difficult topic, but we really appreciate your 
personal experience, your expertise, and the value you bring to 
this conversation. So, thank you.
    Ms. Pineiro, I would like to particularly thank you for 
your personal story and for the advocacy that you bring and the 
courage that you show.
    In reflecting on SB 8--and I told you this--I am reminded 
of a story of which is a story of my mother-in-law, Joan 
Canaan. She was the youngest of six children growing up in 1930 
Scranton. Her mother became pregnant with a seventh child, and 
the doctors discovered that the child would be stillborn. They 
also knew that the mother would likely die in childbirth.
    It was the 1930s. It was Scranton. It was a Catholic 
community. So, her family did not have a choice; the choice was 
with the government and with the church. Maybe the outcome 
would have been the same. Perhaps she would have chosen to go 
forward with that pregnancy. We don't know.
    We will never know because she and her family had no 
choice. The baby was stillborn, and Joan's mother died in 
labor, forfeiting six young children. May we never go back to 
that.
    This was the 1930s, some 90 years ago, and yet we are still 
discussing the merits or the right of a woman to choose. While 
we should all be alarmed at Texas' SB 8, the bill follows a 
long list of restrictions in Texas.
    In fact, before this de facto ban, Texas had enacted 26 
abortion restrictions to a woman's right to choose. These 
restrictions, or rules, on abortions include, but not limited 
to, State-mandated counseling to discourage women from having 
an abortion, a 24-hour waiting period, banning telehealth, 
requiring women to physically visit their healthcare provider. 
Due to waiting periods and scheduling, we know the delays that 
causes; prevention of health insurance, and also, as the doctor 
told us, the offering of bad information to patients.
    We can no longer say Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. 
So, Dr. Moayedi, could you elaborate on the impact some of 
these barriers have had on women in your practice? I would like 
to pick up on a question that my friend and colleague asked 
you. Can you expand on some of the complications, perhaps like 
the one I told you about my mother-in-law's mom, some of the 
complications that might lead a doctor to discuss the option of 
abortion even when a pregnancy is wanted?
    Dr. Moayedi. Thank you so much for allowing me to continue. 
So, yes, at any point in pregnancy, for example, at 15 weeks, 
someone's bag of water can break. When that happens, there is 
no intervention that can help continue that pregnancy. There is 
no intervention that can assure life for that pregnancy, and so 
the recommendation at that point is delivery or a procedure, an 
abortion, to prevent death in that person.
    This law, SB 8, prevents us from being able to do that, and 
we have to actually wait until the person is critically ill 
before we can intervene. So, that situation comes up quite a 
bit, where someone has pregnancy complication and a very highly 
described pregnancy, but the bag of water breaks, or they start 
hemorrhaging or bleeding very heavily, and we need to 
intervene.
    There are also conditions that the fetus, the pregnancy 
itself, can develop that actually mirror a condition in the 
pregnant person. So, if a fetus develops severe what is called 
Hydrops, or takes on fluid in its body, there is a condition 
called mirror syndrome, and that can happen in a pregnant 
person, too, and cause death in them as well.
    So, these are just a few examples, but there are literally 
hundreds and thousands of things that can go wrong during 
pregnancy. So, every pregnant person needs the option, the 
availability, to swift, expert abortion care to save their 
lives when they need it.
    Ms. Dean. Did any patient ever come to you saying, ``I 
would like an abortion because it is cool?''
    Dr. Moayedi. Never.
    Ms. Dean. I wouldn't think so. It is quite serious.
    Dr. Moayedi. I find it incredibly insulting to hear that 
about women, but particularly about Black women. I trust Black 
women to make the best decisions for their families, and that 
includes abortion care.
    Ms. Dean. In the remaining--I have no time left. In any 
event, I would love to have had more conversation with you, 
Professor. I apologize. I will submit my question to you 
privately.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Expired, and the gentlelady yields back.
    I recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar, for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair. I first want to thank 
our panelists for sticking it out, being with us for a very, 
very long day here in our nation's capital. I also want to 
apologize for the incredibly shocking and disrespectful 
comments that have come from some of my Republican colleagues.
    As a native and lifelong Texan, it has been heartbreaking 
to see my State lead the way in eroding decades of gains in 
voting rights, civil rights, human rights, and women's rights. 
We have talked at great length, and rightfully so, about the 
dangerous impact Texas SB 8's law has on women and on Texans. 
It also has a dangerous impact on providers.
    Dr. Moayedi, throughout today's hearing, my colleagues 
across the aisle have cut you off and asked you questions in 
very bad faith. One of my colleagues just went so far as to 
dismiss your concerns about how the language that he uses 
endangers you and the rest of the Witnesses on this panel.
    I would like for you to please explain to the public, and 
explain to our Committee, the danger that this rhetoric puts 
you and other abortion service providers and advocates in.
    Dr. Moayedi. Thank you so much for that question, 
Representative, and thank you for your service to our State. 
Anytime there is a hearing like this, Federally or locally in 
our legislature, we see an increase in protesting and 
harassment outside of our clinics. I see personally an increase 
in letters, threats, harassment online, and by mail.
    When the Representatives engage in this sort of conduct 
where they equate me or my colleagues here as murderers, right 
now, I have been receiving messages on Instagram and on Twitter 
saying that I am evil person, that I deserve to die. Right?
    I am a mom, too. I am a person, too. I deeply care for my 
community. I am not in DC today, because last night I was 
delivering babies here in my community. So, I find it deeply 
troubling as a mom, as an OB/GYN, and a servant to my community 
that people would speak about me in this way and put me in 
danger. Put me in danger.
    These people have yelled in my face before, but also yelled 
in my child's face before. That is not something who cares 
about children at all.
    Ms. Escobar. I think representing a community--El Paso, 
Texas--that understands the power of words and the consequences 
of words, I think what we have seen here on this Committee 
coming from the dais is the use of words that are intended to 
fuel anger and possibly very dangerous consequences. So, I 
thank you for sharing that with me.
    I have a follow-up question for you. Throughout the 
hearing, you have been interrupted. Things have been said that 
you have wanted to respond to but have not been able to respond 
to. Is there anything that you heard here today about 
pregnancy, abortion care, or the impacts of SB 8 that you would 
like to clarify for the record using the remainder of my time?
    Dr. Moayedi. Yes, I would love to. I want to start by 
saying that abortion has always existed. As long as people have 
given birth, they have had abortions. Abortion is a necessary 
part of our reproductive lives. Without access to abortion 
care, maternal health, and mortality is extremely in danger.
    I also want to clarify that abortion is not always a tragic 
decision, that many people are resolute in their decisions. It 
is okay to have one abortion. It is okay to have more than one 
abortion. Abortion is not dangerous. It is incredibly safe. In 
a State like Texas, it is 10-13 times safer than childbirth.
    Every single person in our State deserves the right to 
become pregnant. They deserve the right to not be pregnant. 
They deserve the right to parent their children in safe and 
healthy environments.
    If the Representatives here truly care about children and 
families, I would love to work with them on policies that truly 
elevate our communities. Right now, we are talking about paid 
parental leave, and so many Representatives here don't want to 
support parents after they give birth. That is one of the best 
things you can do to prevent infant mortality. It is one of the 
best things you can do to prevent postpartum depression.
    I don't understand at all why they don't care about us and 
why they don't care about our families.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much. There is clearly a 
difference between being pro-life and being pro-birth. Thank 
you for your testimony.
    Madam Chair, I ask unanimous--or, Mr. Chair, I ask 
unanimous consent to submit into the record testimony from the 
Texas House Women's Health Caucus that was submitted to the 
Texas House.
    [The information follows:]

      
                       MS. ESCOBAR FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. [Presiding] Without objection.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Ross.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you so 
much to the Witnesses for their patience and for your 
dedication to the women of Texas and the women of this country. 
I want to start with a couple of quotes from Justice Ginsburg I 
know our Chair started, but I think it is a nice way to remind 
us of why we are here today and why this Texas law is so 
pernicious.
    I want to remind the Committee of what Justice Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg wrote in her 2007 dissent in Gonzalez v. Carhart:

        Legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures 
        do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy. 
        Rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her 
        life's course and, thus, to enjoy equal citizenship statute.

    Justice Ginsburg argued this point in her 1993 Senate 
confirmation hearing as well, explaining that the decision 
whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, 
well-being, and dignity. It is a decision she must make for 
herself. When the Government controls that decision for her, 
she is being treated less than as a fully adult human 
responsible for her own choices.
    This holds true today, and these same issues are under 
threat and women are under threat. Senate Bill 8 is appalling 
for many reasons, including its unconstitutionality and the 
deputization of private citizens as bounty hunters. Our focus 
must be on the simple fact that this is a law that hurts women.
    In the end, that is the only thing that matters. Forced 
parenthood threatens a woman's physical and mental health. It 
restricts our economic freedom. It makes women of color poorer, 
and, in particular, second-class citizens. There is plenty of 
data that you have shared with us that support these findings.
    The only proof we really need that these laws--this law 
hurts women--come from the stories you have shared today. I 
want to go back to what we just heard from Dr. Moayedi, and I 
love the point that you were making, that if we are truly, 
truly pro-family, then we need to enact policies that make it 
easier for people who have children to give those children a 
good life.
    That involves the health and healthcare of women. In Texas, 
like in my home State of North Carolina, there has not been 
Medicaid expansion. That means that women are not able to get 
critical healthcare preconception and take care of themselves, 
and not able to get health services postpartum when they are 
trying to care for a new baby.
    So, Doctor, please share with us how Texas' decision to 
deputize people to prevent abortions runs contrary to a woman's 
health when Texas cannot find it in its heart to provide 
Medicaid to poor women.
    Dr. Moayedi. Thank you for that question, Representative 
Ross. It brings to mind a story of a patient I took care of 
several years ago. This person was a mother of five or six 
children--I can't remember at this point--but had several 
children and had recently had a child as well. She developed 
severe heart failure after that pregnancy and was just told, 
``Don't become pregnant again; you will die.''
    Well, in Texas, prior to this last session, your Medicaid 
expired at six weeks. So, there was no way for her to get her 
cardiac drugs. There was no way for her to get birth control 
afterwards to keep herself healthy. Of course, she became 
pregnant again, and continuing that pregnancy would have killed 
her.
    So, this person, a mother of many children, struggling to 
be a good mom, had to scrape together everything to be able to 
get abortion care so she wouldn't die and leave her children 
without a
parent.
    I deal with those situations every single week in Texas. We 
need better healthcare in our State desperately, and that 
includes removing restrictions to abortion care and expanding 
Medicaid.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you so much for helping women.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for a unanimous 
consent statement.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to submit into the record articles, ``These Texas women 
got abortions from a California doctor after the State's ban. 
Here are their stories.'' The San Francisco Chronicle; ``Texas 
Abortion Law Could Worsen the State's Maternal Mortality 
Rate,'' New York Times; September 22, 2021; ``Texas abortion: 
Doctor sued in first-known challenges of new law,'' BBC News, 
September 21, 2021; `` `My body is not their property': Texas 
woman's journey across state lines for an abortion,'' October 
15, 2021; and finally, ``Opinion | Why I violated Texas's 
extreme abortion law,'' Washington Post, September 18, 2021.
    I ask unanimous consent to submit these into the record.
    [The information follows:]


      
                     MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    Ms. Bush.
    Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I thank you, Chair, for convening 
this hearing today. My plea today is with my colleagues on this 
Committee and with the American public watching.
    Take a walk in the shoes of an 18-year-old girl from St. 
Louis, a Black girl, a girl who is uninsured and suffering from 
asthma, a health condition she likely got from the burning of 
fossil fuels in her community. She can't afford rent. She works 
a minimum wage job, and her friends consider her fortunate 
because at least she has a job.
    Even in this job, she is making less than her White 
counterparts. She is also nine weeks pregnant, feeling alone 
and afraid. That girl is me. We don't live in a world that 
nurtures and cares for Black girls like me. If the world 
doesn't care about a Black girl like me, then what will happen 
to our Black babies who grow up to be Black--grow up to become 
Black children and Black adults.
    Professor Bridges, you talk about the high mortality rates 
among Black pregnant people. In a world in which Roe is 
overturned, what harms do abortion bans pose for Black pregnant 
people?
    Dr. Bridges. It would be coercing them to give birth, which 
is a dangerous proposition, which is something that should be 
embarrassing to the United States. The United States is one of 
the--it is actually the only industrialized nation that has an 
infant mortality rate that is increasing.
    The racial disparities in maternal mortality mean that 
three to four times as many Black people should expect to die 
while attempting a birth. So, to coerce birth, which is what 
abortion bans and regulations do, is to coerce Black people to 
engage in a task that is dangerous to them.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Professor Bridges. May I ask you 
another question? Some scholars have compared this bounty 
system to the Fugitive Slave Acts, laws that offered a bounty 
for capturing and returning fugitive slaves and provided for 
fines up to $1,000 against anyone who helped a fugitive 
enslaved person. I agree.
    Can you describe the White supremacist roots that link SB 8 
and the Fugitive Slave Acts?
    Dr. Bridges. Absolutely. So, the Fugitive Slave Act is an 
effort to ensure that people of color--Black people 
specifically--were human property, and that slavery as an 
institution would be perpetuated and that the people who 
purported to own those Black people would not lose their 
property.
    So, essentially, the Fugitive Slave Act allowed others to 
control their bodies. Private actors, right, to control the 
bodies of other human beings. That is precisely what is 
happening in Texas today. In deputizing private citizens to 
seek a bounty on other private citizens, we are allowing 
private citizens to control, terrorize, regulate, the bodies of 
other human beings.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. Thank you for explaining that 
Professor Bridges.
    Dr. Moayedi, SB 8 has been law for 64 days, and in those 64 
days clinics have closed and certain resources have been 
permanently erased. What are the permanent impacts of SB 8 on 
people of color and people living in poverty?
    Dr. Moayedi. Thank you for that question. Representative 
Bush, thank you again for sharing your story. It moves me every 
single time, and it is the core of why I provide this care.
    When I first started working in abortion care and realized 
the desperate need for women of color to take care of other 
women of color, that is what inspired me to become a physician 
and to provide abortion care in Texas. So, this issue is very 
dear to my heart.
    This ban is disastrous for communities of color, especially 
the ones that I serve. Many of the people I take care of have 
never left the North Texas area, so traveling to Oklahoma City 
even is very challenging for them.
    Last week, I took care of someone from the coast area in 
Texas that was coming to Oklahoma City. Because they had never 
left the State either, their friend made them a reservation in 
a hotel in Tulsa instead of Oklahoma City because they didn't 
really understand where to go. So, that is just one small story 
of how challenging and insurmountable getting out of the State 
for care can be.
    What is truly frightening for me is what we are going to 
see in the next 7-8 months as far as maternal mortality in the 
communities that I serve. The people--yes.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that.
    What I want to make clear here today, as the first Black 
woman and nurse to serve the people of Missouri in Congress, is 
that the path to overturning Roe will be devastating for all 
people, especially Black people. Abortion care would still 
exist, like it did before this landmark decision, but it will 
be deadly in a world where Black pregnant people die four times 
more often than White pregnant people during childbirth.
    In a world where Black women are disproportionately evicted 
from their homes, in a world where Black trans-women are more 
likely to turn to sex for survival, failing to legislative 
reproductive justice is a death sentence for our neighbors, co-
workers, and families.
    We cannot afford to go back on our reproductive rights. We 
must legislate love. We must legislative justice for Black 
girls and non-binary folks and guarantee reproductive rights 
for everyone.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    This concludes today's hearing. We thank the Witnesses for 
participating and for their patience for a very long day.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the Witnesses, 
or additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 8:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

     
                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]