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




    REVOKING YOUR RIGHTS: THE ONGOING CRISIS IN ABORTION CARE ACCESS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-68

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary



                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




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





                                 ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

48-489                    WASHINGTON : 2022






                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

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

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

         AMY RUTKIN, Majority Staff Director and Chief of Staff
               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                






                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Wednesday, May 18, 2022

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

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

                               WITNESSES

Dr. Yashica Robinson, At-Large Member, Board of Directors, 
  Physicians for Reproductive Health
  Oral Testimony.................................................     7
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     9
Ms. Aimee Arrambide, Executive Director, Avow Texas
  Oral Testimony.................................................    12
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    14
Ms. Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO, Americans United 
  for Life
  Oral Testimony.................................................    18
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    20
Ms. Michele Bratcher Goodwin, Chancellor's Professor of Law, 
  University of California, Irvine
  Oral Testimony.................................................    35
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    37

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

A statement from Sarah Parshall Perry, Senior Legal Fellow, Meese 
  Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation, 
  submitted by the Honorable Mike Johnson, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Louisiana, for the 
  record.........................................................    64
An article entitled, ``Opinion | On Roe, Alito cites a judge who 
  treated women as witches and property,'' Washington Post, 
  submitted by the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York, for the 
  record.........................................................    90
An article entitled, ``Opinion | Tim Scott: Abortion is not the 
  way to help single Black mothers,'' Washington Post, submitted 
  by the Honorable Burgess Owens, a Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Utah, for the record...........   120
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mike Johnson, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Louisiana, for 
  the record
  A letter from Donna J. Harrison, Chief Executive Officer, 
    American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and 
    Gynecologists................................................   124
  A statement from Kristan Hawkins, President, Students for Life 
    of America and Students for Life Action......................   130
  A statement from Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO, 
    Americans United for Life....................................   150

                                APPENDIX

Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York, for the 
  record
  A report entitled, ``Roe and Intersectional Liberty Doctrine,'' 
    Center for Reproductive Rights...............................   154
  A statement from MomsRising....................................   176
  A report entitled, ``Protect Our Reproductive Rights: Personal 
    Stories on Abortion Experience,'' MomsRising.................   178
  A letter from Randi Weingarten, President, American Federation 
    of Teachers..................................................   221
  A statement from NARAL Pro-Choice America......................   224
  A letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
    Rights.......................................................   229
  An article entitled, ``The New Jane Crow,'' The Atlantic.......   235





 
    REVOKING YOUR RIGHTS: THE ONGOING CRISIS IN ABORTION CARE ACCESS

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, May 18, 2022

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair 
of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson 
Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Jeffries, 
Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Scanlon, 
Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Escobar, Jones, Ross, 
Bush, Jordan, Chabot, Gohmert, Issa, Buck, Gaetz, Johnson of 
Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Steube, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, 
Bishop, Fischbach, Spartz, Fitzgerald, Bentz, and Owens.
    Staff present: Aaron Hiller, Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff 
Director; John Doty, Senior Advisor and Deputy Staff Director; 
Arya Hariharan, Chief Oversight Counsel; David Greengrass, 
Senior Counsel; Moh Sharma, Director of Member Services and 
Outreach & Policy Advisor; Jacqui Kappler, Oversight Counsel; 
Roma Venkateswaran, Professional Staff Member/Legislative Aide; 
Brady Young, Parliamentarian; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; 
Gabriel Barnett, Staff Assistant; Merrick Nelson, Digital 
Director; James Park, Chief Counsel for Constitution; Agbeko 
Petty, Counsel for Constitution; Betsy Ferguson, Minority 
Senior Counsel; Caroline Nabity, Minority Senior Counsel; 
Elliott Walden, Minority Counsel; Andrea Woodard, Minority 
Professional Staff Member; and Kiley Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
    Chair Nadler. The House Committee on the Judiciary will 
come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
recesses of the Committee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on Revoking 
your Rights: The Ongoing Crisis in Abortion Care Access.
    Before we begin, I would like to remind Members that we 
have established an email address and distribution list 
dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, or other materials 
that Members might want to offer as part of our hearing today. 
If you would like to submit materials, please send them to the 
email address that has been previously distributed to your 
offices and we will circulate the materials to Members and 
staff as quickly as we can.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Two weeks ago, in a leak of a draft opinion from the 
Supreme Court, we learned that for the first time in its 
history the Court may be on the precipice of overturning 
precedent to take away a constitutional right. In so doing it 
would revoke the constitutional right to abortion, a 
fundamental right it first recognized almost 50 years ago in 
Roe v. Wade and on that millions of Americans have relied on 
for half a century.
    I want to state at the outset that I do not condone such 
leaks and to whoever was responsible must be held accountable. 
Now, that we have this information, we cannot ignore the 
reality and the magnitude of what the Court seems poised to do 
and what congressional Republicans have said they will do once 
they are in power to enact a ban on abortion nationwide.
    The decision to become a parent belongs to that individual. 
She may consult with her doctor or her loved ones to inform 
that decision, and I hope that she has such people in her life 
to help her make that decision, but the decision belongs to 
her, period.
    Overturning Roe would remove from women the power to decide 
the fundamental question of whether to carry or terminate a 
pregnancy and instead would give that power to the State. It is 
both timely and appropriate for the Judiciary Committee to 
educate the American people about the devastating impact that 
such a decision would have and to examine the ongoing crisis in 
abortion care access that already affects people all across the 
nation.
    Before continuing I want to say something to those--to all 
those who are currently considering abortion care. Despite 
these very real concerns about the State of access to abortion 
care or its continuing legality, let me be clear: Abortion 
remains legal and your right to get an abortion continuous--
continues to be constitutionally protected, at least for now. 
Making decisions about when and how to start a family is 
central to women's lives. The right to decide whether to carry 
or terminate a pregnancy is central to life, liberty, and 
equality. It is the very essence of what it means to have 
bodily autonomy, which is a prerequisite for freedom.
    Again, to say it simply, the decision to become a parent 
belongs to that individual, period. No court decision is more 
essential to protecting a woman's individual autonomy than Roe 
v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that recognized a 
constitutional right to abortion.
    Roe represented a watershed moment in our nation's history. 
Recognizing the right of women to make reproductive decisions 
is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and 
a pillar of women's equality. In doing so, the Supreme Court 
continued a series of rulings that rejected government 
interference in America's most intimate life decisions. To the 
Court, ``Few decisions were more personal and intimate, 
properly private, or more basic to individual dignity and 
autonomy than a woman's decision whether to end a pregnancy.''
    Almost 20 years later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 
Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to abortion finding it 
central to a woman's dignity, autonomy, and status as an equal 
citizen. Indeed, if Americans cannot make decisions about their 
reproductive health, they cannot make decisions about starting 
a career, going to school, opening a business, and planning 
their lives.
    Unfortunately, Roe and Casey remain under constant threat 
resulting in an ongoing crisis in abortion and other vital 
healthcare services. Over the last decade, State legislatures 
have passed hundreds of bills designed to block individuals 
from accessing abortion care. Under the disingenuous claim that 
these laws protect women's health, these States are 
deliberately attempting to put abortion out of reach. This is 
so in spite of the fact that numerous studies have concluded 
that giving birth involves more serious health complications 
than having an abortion.
    Meanwhile, according to the recently-leaked draft majority 
opinion in the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health 
Organization authored by Justice Samuel Alito, an emboldened 
right-wing majority in the Supreme Court appears poised to 
revoke the right to abortion altogether.
    To be clear, this draft remains just that: A draft opinion, 
and we await the Court's actual decision expected to be handed 
down in the next several weeks. Nonetheless, we cannot simply 
ignore the fact that the nation now appears to stand at a 
constitutional turning point. If the Supreme Court overturns or 
severely curtails Roe, a precedent that women have relied on 
for almost a half-century to make decisions about how best to 
order their lives, generations to come will have fewer rights 
than those that preceded them.
    At least 23 States have laws in place to limit abortions 
including 13 that have trigger laws that would automatically 
ban all abortions if Roe were to fall and at least eight States 
that have pre-Roe bans that would be--once again become 
enforceable should Roe be overturned. Practically overnight, 
whether the government protects the essential individual right 
to make reproductive healthcare decisions will depend entirely 
upon where in this country a person lives.
    Furthermore, if the leaked draft opinion becomes the 
Court's actual decision, it would exacerbate an already dire 
crisis in abortion care access. The consequences will be 
devastating. Women who cannot afford to travel, women of color, 
and women in rural communities will be disproportionately 
affected by State abortion bans and restrictions. People who 
work hourly jobs, already have children, or live many miles 
away from an abortion provider face impossible decisions and 
often unsurmountable obstacles in finding the time, money, and 
support to access the care that they need, the care that is 
integral to their dignity and their fundamental freedom to live 
their lives on their own terms.
    My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try 
desperately to change the subject in the hope that no one 
notices, but if Justice Alito's draft opinion holds, millions 
of Americans will lose their fundamental constitutional right 
overnight. Do not let them get away with it. They will try to 
muddy the waters today by accusing Democrats of bullying the 
Court as if the wealthy conservative justices poised to hand 
down this decision have it worse than the women and healthcare 
providers who risk imprisonment if they seek or perform an 
abortion after this decision takes effect. They will try to 
distract you from their ultimate goal, a ban on abortion 
nationwide without exception.
    Republican voices in the media have tried to downplay the 
consequences of all this by arguing that the leak itself is the 
problem and that it threatens the integrity of the Court. As I 
said from the start, the leak is a problem, but I will not be 
lectured on how best to protect democratic institutions from 
the crowd that cheered on the mob on January 6 of last year and 
continues to perpetuate a gross lie about the last election.
    As they accuse the leaker of undermining democracy keep in 
mind the most stunning aspect of this draft decision: Justice 
Alito's words and logic used today to undermine the right to 
abortion provide a road map for the erosion of other 
fundamental rights including the rights to marriage, to 
contraception, and to make decisions about raising our own 
children.
    Justice Alito's assurances to the contrary in this draft 
opinion are cold comfort. He used the same logic to argue 
against the right to marriage in Obergefell and there is no 
reason to believe that the same five justices will not engage 
in a similar raw exercise of power to overturn other basic 
rights should the opportunity arise.
    Ladies and gentlemen, at base, safe, legal, and accessible 
abortion continues to be fundamental to individual equality, 
autonomy, and personal liberty. The decision to become a parent 
belongs to that individual. We cannot go backward. Congressmen 
must now stand up with Americans around the country and refuse 
to turn back the clock.
    Republican leadership has already told us what they want 
Congress to do. For all their talk about returning power to the 
States, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said 
that a national ban on abortion will be under consideration 
should Roe be overturned. When that happens, living in a blue 
State will not save you from their attempt to take your 
decision about becoming a parent away from you.
    Nationwide means nationwide. Without exception means 
without exception. We cannot let that happen. Instead, Congress 
must Act to ensure that every woman, regardless of geographic 
location, income, race, or any other fact, retains her 
constitutional right to access abortion. We will fight for 
legislation at every level of government to protect women's 
health, to protect access to contraception, to protect access 
to IVF, and to protect abortion rights.
    Women must have the freedom to make decisions about their 
reproductive health without anyone questioning their intellect, 
morals, or honesty. I stand with the Members of this Committee 
and millions of Americans around this country ready to fight 
for reproductive freedom.
    I thank our Witnesses for being here and I look forward to 
this testimony.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is about intimidation. 
It started in 2018 when the left and Democrats lied about 
Justice Kavanaugh, treated that individual in such a savage 
way. I don't know if I have ever seen anything like it.
    Two years later in 2020 we saw Senator Schumer stand on the 
steps of the Supreme Court and threaten sitting justices. Here 
is what he said: ``I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell 
you, Kavanaugh, you've released the whirlwind and you will pay 
the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with 
these awful decisions.'' It is about intimidation.
    Thirteen months ago, President Biden launched a 
Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court to explore packing 
the Court. It was no accident that that same month, the Chair 
of this Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, introduced 
legislation to pack the Supreme Court.
    Four weeks ago, this Committee held a hearing in a 
Subcommittee laying the groundwork to impeach Justice Thomas. 
Of course, three weeks ago, the draft Dobbs opinion was leaked, 
leaked for the first time it has ever happened, draft opinion 
leaked.
    Last week this Committee the Democrats passed legislation 
requiring, among other things, that people who want to submit 
amicus briefs to the Supreme Court would be required to 
disclose all their donors in an attempt to chill First 
Amendment protected free speech.
    The latest attempt to intimidate the Court started 10 
minutes ago when this hearing was gaveled into order.
    This hearing is about the very issue in front of the Court 
as we speak. While this is happening, the Democrats in the 
House have blocked us from considering legislation passed 
unanimously by the Senate to give the Supreme Court justices 
more security. They need more security now more than ever. 
There are protestors outside their homes protesting each and 
every day. Protestors showed up at justices' place of worship 
on Mother's Day. You know why they are trying to bully and 
intimidate the Court? You know why? Because the evidence for 
overturning Roe is overwhelming and the reasoning and the logic 
in the draft Dobbs majority opinion is so strong.
    Here is what it said: ``Roe was on a collision course with 
the Constitution from the day it was decided and Casey 
perpetuated its errors, and the errors do not concern some 
arcane corner of the law of little importance to the American 
people.'' Further stated: ``We hold that Roe and Casey must be 
overruled. The Constitution makes not reference to abortion and 
no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional 
provision.'' Finally, the opinion states: ``It is time to heed 
the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the 
people's elected representatives.'' To the people's elected 
representatives.
    Those representatives in the State of Mississippi passed 
legislation. That legislation was signed by the governor of 
Mississippi, also elected by the people of Mississippi. What 
did that legislation, adopted by the duly-elected 
representatives of the people of that State say? If an unborn 
child is 15 weeks or older, you can't take their life. You 
can't do it.
    Specifically, it said this: ``Except in a medical emergency 
a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform or induce 
an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable 
gestational age of that unborn human being has been determined 
to be greater than 15 weeks.''
    Why? Why did they pick that time frame? At five weeks an 
unborn child's heart begins beating. At eight weeks the child 
begins to move in the womb. At 10 weeks vital organs begin to 
function. At 11 weeks the diaphragm is developing. At 12 weeks 
the child has taken on human form in all relevant respects.
    People of Mississippi's legislature passed the law in 
question because they understand that life is precious, and it 
should be protected. They understand that life is a gift from 
our Creator. They understand that you can't pursue happiness if 
you first don't have liberty and you never have real liberty, 
you never have true freedom if government won't protect your 
most fundamental right, your right to live.
    I hope the draft opinion is the final opinion because it is 
a win for logic, it is a win for the Constitution, and most 
importantly it is a win for the sanctity of human life. 
Finally, I hope the attempt to intimidate the Court ends now.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection, all other opening 
statements will be included in the record.
    I will now introduce today's Witnesses.
    Dr. Yashica Robinson is a board-certified obstetrician/
gynecologist. She serves on the Board of Directors of 
Physicians for Reproductive Health and is an attending 
physician at the Alabama Women's Wellness Center. Dr. Robinson 
received her B.A. from Talladega College and her M.D. from the 
Morehouse School of Medicine.
    Aimee Arrambide, and I hope I got that pronunciation 
correct. Aimee Arrambide is the Executive Director of Avow 
Texas. She serves on the board of Equality Texas and the 
Advisory Council of ReproAction and is a We Testify 
storyteller. She received her undergraduate degree at the 
University of Texas and a law degree from New York Law School.
    Catherine Glenn Foster is President and CEO of Americans 
United for Life. Previously she spent seven years a litigation 
counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom. She then founded and 
managed a law practice and led Euthanasia Prevention Coalition 
USA as Executive Director. Ms. Foster earned her B.A. from 
Berry College, a Master's degree from the University of South 
Carolina--South Florida, and a J.D. from Georgetown University 
Law Center.
    Michele Bratcher Goodwin is the Chancellor's Professor of 
Law and the Founding Director of the Center for Biotechnology 
and Global Health Policy at the University of California 
Irvine. Previously, Professor Goodwin was the Everett Fraser 
Professor at the University of Minnesota with appointments in 
the Law School, Medical School, and School of Public Health. 
She received her B.A. from the University of Wisconsin, her 
J.D. from Boston College Law School, and received L.L.M. and 
S.J.D. degrees from the University of Wisconsin.
    We welcome our distinguished Witnesses and we thank them 
for participating today. I will begin by swearing in our 
Witnesses. I ask that our Witnesses in person please rise and 
raise your right hand. I ask that our remote Witness please 
turn on your audio and make sure I can see your face and your 
raised right hand while I administer the oath.
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record show the Witnesses have answered in the 
affirmative. Thank you and please be seated.
    Please note that each of your written statements will be 
entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask 
that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you 
stay within that time there is a timing light on your table. 
When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one 
minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it 
signals your five minutes have expired.
    For our Witness appearing virtually, there is a timer on 
your screen to help you keep track of time.
    Dr. Robinson, you may begin.

                 STATEMENT OF YASHICA ROBINSON

    Dr. Robinson. Good morning, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member 
Jordan, and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is 
Dr. Yashica Robinson. I use she/her pronouns. I'm a board-
certified OB/GYN, a board member with Physicians for 
Reproductive Health, and I am the Medical Director of Alabama 
Women's Center, one of Alabama's last clinics that provides 
abortion care.
    As a full-spectrum obstetrician/gynecologist, I have a busy 
obstetrics practice where I provide prenatal care, deliver 
babies, and treat people after they give birth. I also provide 
abortion care because I know patients deserve access to the 
full spectrum of reproductive healthcare options.
    As of today, abortion remains legal in Alabama and States 
across the country, but it is not likely to remain that way. 
This has never been a theoretical exercise. We're talking about 
the real health and lives of our neighbors, family Members, and 
friends.
    I came to this work not only because I believe all people 
deserve to make decisions about their lives, health, and 
bodies, but also because of my passion for young people, one 
that is deeply rooted in my personal experience with becoming 
pregnant as a young adult. Prior to finishing high school, I 
learned that I was pregnant. As a result of fear and lack of 
resources, by the time I confided in
my mother and grandmother I had no choice. I was going to be a
mother.
    Becoming a teen mother came with many harsh realities. I 
love my children with all my heart, but I know that everyone 
should be able to make the decision to parent for themselves. I 
have been in the shoes of many of the young people that I see 
in my clinic, and it is important for them to know that 
regardless of their decision that I'm here to support them.
    Access to care should not look different based on your ZIP 
Code. Because of medically unnecessary abortion restrictions I 
see patients forced to travel up to 12 hours from as far away 
as Louisiana, Florida, and now Texas because of the ripple 
effect of abortion bans, stigma, and targeted harassment all 
leading to other providers being forced to shut their doors. I 
know of patients who have slept in their cars overnight as a 
result of mandatory delay periods because they had no other 
choice.
    These restrictions add needless cost and delays. The 
effects on the patients I care for are painful for me to see 
and things are only going to get worse as States move to ban 
abortions should the protections of Roe and Casey, which are 
already illusory for far too many people in this country, be 
overturned.
    As someone who cares for people throughout pregnancy, 
maternal health is of the utmost importance to me. In Alabama, 
Black women are nearly five times more likely to die from 
pregnancy-related causes than White women. This is higher than 
the national average which is quoted to be three times more 
likely, and this will continue to worsen as more States limit 
access to abortion care.
    Systemic barriers, racism, and White supremacy are at the 
root of both our maternal health crisis and our abortion access 
crisis. It is undeniable that without access to abortion, 
maternal mortality rates will continue to rise. I cannot 
emphasize enough that abortion is essential healthcare.
    Receiving or providing this care should not be 
criminalized. By attempting to criminalize practitioners who 
provide abortion care, the bans that we have seen pass in 
Alabama and in other States threaten people and communities 
that are already suffering from a lack of healthcare resources 
and it compounds the complex scenarios that obstetricians like 
me routinely balance as we make the best decisions we can in 
managing complicated pregnancies.
    Restrictions on abortion affect everyone yet fall hardest 
on those who are marginalized and likely facing financial and 
logistical barriers to care. Often these are the same people 
who are disproportionately surveilled and targeted by law 
enforcement. Some States have already begun to increase 
investigation and criminalization of pregnancy outcomes. This 
is not speculation. This is happening today.
    People have unjustly been arrested, prosecuted, and jailed 
for their pregnancy loss and had their search histories and 
digital footprints used as evidence to prosecute and sentence 
them. Patients' well-founded fear of surveillance and 
criminalization leaves them to distrust the healthcare system 
ultimately harming our collective health and well-being.
    The truth is as more States enact abortion restrictions and 
attempt to ban abortion entirely, patients and providers will 
be put in untenable situations. Patients will be forced to 
leave their communities, providers forced to relocate to 
continue providing care to medical students, and residents 
unable to receive education or training in abortion care, 
patients and providers fearing criminal charges for seeking or 
receiving care, providing essential and normal healthcare.
    This is a future that is filled with control, fear, and 
coercion, but the bottom line is this: Abortion is healthcare 
and this is essential care that we must protect. The patients I 
care for in my community deserve dignity, autonomy, and agency.
    I urge the Members of this Committee to do everything they 
can in this moment to protect access to abortion care. Our 
lives depend on it. Thank you for holding this important 
hearing and I look forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Dr. Robinson follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                 
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Arrambide, you are now recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF AIMEE ARRAMBIDE

    Ms. Arrambide. Good morning and thank you to the House 
Judiciary Committee for inviting me to provide testimony today. 
My name is Aimee Arrambide. I use she/her pronouns and I'm a We 
Testify Abortion Storyteller and the Executive Director of 
Avow, an organization that strives for unrestricted abortion 
care and reproductive rights for all Texans through community 
building, education, and political advocacy.
    One in four of us will have an abortion, one in five of us 
experience mental health issues in a given year, and one in 
twenty-five Americans live with a serious mental health illness 
such as bipolar disorder. I live at the intersection of all 
three. I'm a first-generation Filipina American and second-
generation Mexican American and I'm here to speak on behalf of 
everyone whose abortions allowed them to care for their mental 
health and enable them to thrive as a result.
    My story is not uncommon, but with the stigma surrounding 
both abortion and mental health disabilities it is rarely 
discussed.
    From my late teens into my mid-20s I suffered from 
undiagnosed bipolar disorder, but because I was a good student, 
I hid it well. In college it was harder to identify. For months 
at a time, I would be highly energetic, hyper-productive 
followed by periods of extreme depression. Just existing was 
too hard. I tried to self-medicate and attempted to end my 
life.
    In 2003 when I was 25 years old, I learned I was 12 weeks 
pregnant. I had been with my boyfriend for a year. We agreed 
almost immediately that I would have an abortion. This was 
before many of the abortion bans in Texas, so I was able to 
access care fairly easily despite the cost of $500.
    I was empowered to have an abortion because reproductive 
freedom was always a part of our family's values. My father was 
an abortion provider in Central and South Texas from the 1970-
1990s. He switched his specialty from anesthesiology to 
obstetrics and gynecology in the 1970s and after witnessing the 
repercussions of unsafe abortions before legalization, decided 
to provide abortions. When I was a child, he took me to a 
clinic in Laredo where he provided abortions twice a month. I 
witnessed the gratitude on the faces of those waiting in the 
clinic. My dad was a hero.
    In the year following my abortion my father was diagnosed 
with a glioblastoma brain tumor, and as I spent more time with 
him and as he spiraled into depression, we both realized that I 
was not well. I concluded that to help him get through this 
ordeal, I needed to get help. When I finally found the 
medication that worked, I was a whole new person.
    Treating my bipolar disorder enabled me to take care of my 
father after his brain surgery resulted in a stroke. I was 
mentally healthy for the first time in my adult life. I could 
be a full partner to my boyfriend who is now my husband of 16 
years.
    During law school when I was ready, I had two miscarriages 
and then two children and my pregnancies were physically and 
mentally very difficult. After being a parent for the past 11 
years, I have no doubt that if I had an abortion when I--if I 
hadn't had an abortion when I did, I would not have survived. 
My chosen pregnancies were not easy, but they were exactly 
that, chosen, and my children are my whole world.
    By 2019, Texans would encounter over 26 different abortion 
restrictions. It was then after my husband's vasectomy that I 
became pregnant for the sixth time. I had a medication 
abortion, a series of two safe and simple medications. While 
the abortion was safe and straightforward, the hurdles I had to 
go through were exponentially more difficult, and that's still 
with all the privileges and resources I had at my disposal.
    If this had happened any time in the last eight months 
after S.B. 8, the six-week ban, went into effect, I would have 
had to take off work, find childcare for my children, and 
travel out of State. If this had happened any time in the last 
decade before S.B. 8 went into effect, I would be able to get 
care in Texas, but I would also have encountered a 24-hour 
government-mandated delay, a forced sonogram, the 
legislatively-mandated, medically-inaccurate ``Women's Right to 
Know'' booklet, and anti-abortion counseling.
    When S.B. 8 went into effect, the impact was immediate. 
People were confused about whether abortion was legal, afraid 
to ask their friends and family for help, and unsure if they 
could call abortion clinics or funds because they were afraid 
of being sued or putting their loved ones at risk.
    The wait for care has increased at clinics in our four 
neighboring States because they care for the influx of patients 
from Texas, as well as some of their own communities. Texans 
have been forced to self-manage their abortion or continue 
their pregnancy against their wishes.
    If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Texas' trigger 
ban would go into effect 30 days after, banning abortion 
completely with barely any exceptions. This is real and it's 
terrifying.
    Everyone loves someone who had an abortion.
    [The statement of Ms. Arrambide follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chair Nadler. The Witness's time has expired. Thank you.
    Ms. Foster, you are now recognized for five minutes.

              STATEMENT OF CATHERINE GLENN FOSTER

    Ms. Foster. We're here today because there is an ongoing 
crisis in America. The crisis we're confronting is abortion, 
not abortion care, not abortion access, not abortion choice. 
No, we're here today because there is a crisis in America 
concerning abortion itself, full stop.
    We're approaching 65 million Americans dead from abortion. 
I know this firsthand. At 19 I aborted my first child. I felt 
emotional and psychological pressure to end my child's life. I 
was alone. So many voices in the culture lied to me. So many 
told me abortion was okay, was normal, was good even. I've 
lived with the regret of abortion every day of my life since.
    Abortion was damaging to me and deadly for my child. The 
truth is abortion is always damaging and deadly. I understand 
that the other women on this panel today believe differently. I 
know their stories and I've read their testimony. What is never 
addressed in their testimony is the simple reality of abortion 
violence.
    Abortion activism always requires euphemism and 
misdirection. Why? Because of the violent nature of abortion. 
Because it is frankly inconvenient. Human persons from their 
earliest days poisoned in the womb and dismembered, torn limb 
from limb, bodies thrown in medical waste bins, and in places 
like Washington, DC, burned to power the lights of the city's 
homes and streets. Let that image sink with you for a moment. 
The next time you turn on the light think of the incinerators, 
think of what we're doing to ourselves so callously and so 
numbly.
    Always and everywhere, the convictions of pro-abortion 
activists are damaging, are deadly, and are devastating to the 
fabric of American democracy. To speak for the violence of 
abortion is to speak for injustice. There's no other way to put 
it.
    We once had allegedly serious citizens in America speak for 
slavery. Many fought and even died to perpetuate that 
injustice. It seems incredible to us today, but Americans can 
and will overcome the injustice of abortion just as Americans 
did finally overcome the injustice of slavery.
    Indeed, we're here today because the U.S. Supreme Court 
appears to be finally on the verge of reversing Roe v. Wade and 
Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Roe and Casey are widely regarded 
by legal scholars on the left and the right as the Court's 
greatest and most profound mistakes since Dred Scott or Plessy.
    The future of America, a post-Roe America, is a future full 
of hope. Roe's reversal will make it possible for America's 
lawmakers to once again affirmatively to protect the human 
right to life and to enshrine law and policy that makes 
abortion unthinkable for even those most vulnerable to abortion 
propaganda.
    Now, despite this historic moment, pro-abortion Members of 
Congress recently voted to enshrine abortion in a more 
systemically unjust way even than Roe. Codifying Roe would 
threaten to invalidate State informed consent protections. 
Codifying Roe would threaten to invalidate reflection periods, 
consumer tele-med protections, State prohibitions against race 
or sex or genetic discrimination, and State laws protecting 
human persons at or before the point of viability. Nowhere do 
efforts to codify Roe into Federal law mention either the child 
or the democratic will of the American people. Everything real 
about the mother and child evaporates into thin air.
    The American people, through their elected officials, 
recognize the need for basic oversight, for genuine informed 
consent, and for the interests of the child to matter. It is 
pro-abortion Members of Congress who are out of step with the 
American people. It is a biological reality that a preborn 
child is a member of the human family. We want a true 
constitutional order that equally protects all Members of the 
human family. Even President Biden, despite being bought and 
paid for by corporate abortion money, acknowledged the truth 
earlier this month that at the center of every abortion is, and 
this is his word, ``a child.''
    Abortion is fundamentally unjust. Abortion deprives our 
brothers and sisters of the equal protection of the laws. 
Abortion turns equals into unequals, it empowers the strong at 
the expense of the vulnerable, and it makes us all less human 
and less humane along the way.
    We must confront the violence of abortion and learn to live 
and thrive together. We are Americans; we are up to the 
challenge. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Foster follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chair Nadler. Okay. Thank you.
    Professor Goodwin, you are now recognized for five minutes.

             STATEMENT OF MICHELE BRATCHER GOODWIN

    Ms. Goodwin. Good morning, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member 
Jordan, and distinguished Members of the House Judiciary 
Committee. Thank you for inviting me to participate in today's 
hearing. My name is Michele Bratcher Goodwin. I am a 
Chancellor's Professor at the University of California Irvine, 
a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School. I write and teach 
in the areas of constitutional law, bioethics, and health law. 
My scholarship is published in the Harvard Law Review and the 
Yale Law Journal, among others, and in books, most recently 
``Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of 
Motherhood.''
    Over the past 50 years that have been nearly 50 bombings of 
abortion clinics with doctors, nurses, and security guards 
having been killed. There have been threats and mass shootings 
at our clinics in the United States where they are performing 
constitutionally-protected healthcare.
    Now soon, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling in Dobbs v. 
Jackson Women's Health Organization, a case that involves a 
Mississippi abortion ban at 15 weeks of pregnancy. If the 
Supreme Court allows Mississippi's ban to go into effect, it 
will be endorsing Mississippi's solicitation to overturn Roe v. 
Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two cases underpinning 
the constitutional right to abortion in the United States.
    For many women of means who can travel and pay for 
childcare, the loss of Roe will be devastating. For poor women, 
particularly poor women of color, the loss will be deadly. This 
is the coming of the new Jane Crow.
    In this term, the Supreme Court demonstrated its 
willingness to selectively read and ignore its own 
jurisprudence when it allowed a draconian Texas abortion ban, 
S.B. 8, to go into effect. S.B. 8 bans abortions after six 
weeks of pregnancy before which many women, girls, and 
pregnant-capable people even realize that they are pregnant.
    Ripping a page from the darkest annals of American history, 
the Texas law includes a bounty provision that allows local 
residents to sue individuals who aid, abet, or assist 
individuals seeking to terminate a pregnancy. As its shameful 
predecessor, the Fugitive Slave Act showed the bounty 
incentivizes private individuals to spy upon, surveil, and 
interfere with the individuals asserting fundamental human and 
constitutional rights such as bodily autonomy, privacy, and 
freedom.
    Revoking abortion rights is the very subject of Justice 
Alito's leaked draft opinion, which is disturbing for many 
reasons including troubling inaccuracies, unsupported 
assertions, and flawed reasoning such as the notion that 
constitutional rights do not exist unless explicitly 
articulated or enumerated in the Constitution.
    This novel principal casts doubt on the legitimacy of 
corporate religious personhood and artful contrivance of law 
innovated in 2014 by Justice Alito himself in Burwell v. Hobby 
Lobby, a case that bestowed religious liberties on for-profit 
corporations that sought to limit contraceptive access to 
female employees. Nowhere in the Constitution or statute is it 
mentioned that for-profit corporations shall have religious 
identities and liberties, nevertheless this was crafted by 
Justice Alito less than a decade ago.
    If the draft opinion derives from a purported neutral view 
of the law, as Justice Alito argues, its technical errors and 
omissions are stunningly apparent. Not once does the opinion 
address rape or incest even though the newly styled abortion 
bans, including the Mississippi law, the subject of the draft 
opinion, and Texas' S.B. 8 law, provide no exceptions for 
survivors. Sadly, the draft opinion eschews inconvenient facts 
calling them irrelevant, yet facts matter.
    Moreover, one of the most substantive omissions in Justice 
Alito's draft is that the Constitution establishes that, ``All 
persons born or naturalized are citizens of the United 
States.'' The Constitution does not mention embryos, fetuses, 
or unborn children.
    Now, stripping away these exceptions and forcing abortion 
providers to close their doors exposes the illogic and cruel 
political nature of these bans which showcase the dismantling 
of democratic norms and principles.
    Justice Alito writes about Blackstone, Coke, and Hale, and 
in fact he cites these legal authorities, legal authorities who 
condemned women to the status of property and suggested that 
women could be subjected to physical punishment and even rape 
by their husbands. According to Blackstone, this was for her 
protection and benefit.
    Now, notably, it was the 13th and 14th Amendments in which 
women, not just men, were freed from the bondages of slavery. 
It is very clear that the 13th and 14th Amendments were 
intended to apply to Black women, not just Black men, that they 
should not be subjected to involuntary servitude.
    Now, as I conclude, history reveals the cruelties of 
racism, sexism, and White supremacy in labor and reproduction. 
It is undeniable history reported by this very Congress. Should 
the Supreme Court dismantle Roe v. Wade, its decision will be 
the modern-day corollary and appendage to Plessy v. Ferguson, 
anchoring separate but equal legal discourse in matters of 
reproductive health rights and justice. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Goodwin follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chair Nadler. I thank all the Witnesses for their 
testimony. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with 
questions. I will recognize myself for five minutes.
    Ms. Arrambide, for nearly a year, abortion care has 
effectively been banned in your home State of Texas since S.B. 
8 went into effect in September of 2021. The leaked draft 
majority opinion in Dobbs is deeply troubling, but the truth is 
there has been a multi-year assault by a hostile State 
legislature that has severely impacted abortion care access in 
your State.
    How has this multi-year attack in Texas' draconian six-week 
abortion ban affected the lives of pregnant people in Texas 
today?
    Ms. Arrambide. Thank you. In Texas, currently, we're living 
in a post-Roe world will--where people can't access the 
abortion care they need or they want despite the fact that the 
majority of Texans support access to abortion care. People have 
had to--they're too afraid to look for information for fear of 
being sued. They're too afraid to call clinics for fear of 
being sued. They're too afraid to even access resources from 
abortion funds because they don't know what the repercussions 
might be for their loved ones and themselves.
    In addition to that once they're able to find out the 
information, their care is delayed. They had to find childcare 
accommodations, the ability to travel out of State. They have 
to make appointments at clinics that are already at capacity 
serving their own communities. Many times, people are forced 
either to forego care altogether or--and be forced to carry 
their pregnancy to term or they're self-managing their 
abortion.
    Abortion is essential healthcare and it should be available 
to everyone. In Texas, we've been living as if we're already in 
a post-Roe world, and it's only going to get worse. If the 
decision stands, over 26 States are poised to ban abortion and 
the impact will be exponential across the country. Texas is 
home to over 30 million people. Seven million in 2019 were of 
reproductive age and ability. Those people won't be able to 
access the care they need. That's a travesty. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Professor Goodwin, as of today the right to access abortion 
care is constitutionally protected. If the Alito draft opinion 
is handed down tomorrow and Roe and Casey were overturned, we 
would face a situation where the Court will have taken away a 
long-recognized constitutional right. A person will have had a 
constitutional right today, gone to bed and woken up tomorrow 
to find that she no longer has such a right. What is your 
reaction to such a scenario?
    Ms. Goodwin. It is incredibly unusual in our American 
democracy and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence that the 
Supreme Court would actually take away the expansion of a right 
which is fundamental. That is not something that we've seen the 
Court do. Instead, what the Court has done has been to reject 
draconian laws such as those that enslaved American Black 
people or laws that denied women rights such as to become 
attorneys, or when there were laws that denied women to be able 
to have credit cards in their own names. The Supreme Court has 
struck down such laws and has expanded freedoms. The Supreme 
Court has never gone back to, in fact, revoke what have been 
freedoms that have been well-articulated and established in the 
Constitution and also by the Supreme Court is highly unusual.
    Chair Nadler. Dr. Robinson, States have been chipping away 
at the right to abortion for years by restricting access to 
abortion care. Nonetheless, for two generations of Americans, 
Roe v. Wade has been the legal cornerstone of women's equality 
by assuring that they have access to safe, legal, and 
lifesaving medical care. If the Supreme Court were to overturn 
Roe, how would it further exacerbate the current crisis in 
abortion care access and what would it mean for the patients 
and communities you serve?
    Dr. Robinson. As I mentioned in my testimony, access to 
abortion care is very essential for patients in my community 
and throughout the U.S. It would be quite devastating. Alabama 
is already poised to have a complete ban on abortion. We 
already have a law on the books. So, if this is overturned, 
that means that patients in my community and the surrounding 
communities who have depended on us for care will no longer 
have access to the healthcare that they need. It also means 
that providers of care to people who are pregnant like me will 
have their hands tied when it comes to talking to patients 
about options when it comes to their healthcare.
    I know that many legislators have talked about writing in 
restrictions or allowances for the health of the mother, but in 
a situation where we already have--where Roe is already in 
place, as an obstetrician I already have difficulties obtaining 
the permission to proceed with abortion care for patients who 
are in my hospital.
    If these patients are hospitalized and they're hospitalized 
because they are very ill, we already require two physicians to 
be able to sign off on this. Unfortunately, when a person is 
pregnant and is prior to 20 weeks, 22 weeks gestational age, 
that means that if we end that pregnancy, that means that the 
pregnancy will not come to term. So, as hard as it is to hear, 
that is still called an abortion and it is medical care that 
some patients need. We have difficulty obtaining permission to 
proceed with that right now.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Gaetz?
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield to Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
    The very subject of this hearing is an outrage. Abortion 
care, the stated topic today, is, of course, an oxymoron. The 
timing and the obvious purpose of this hearing today are 
unconscionable, and they are profoundly damaging to our 
institutions.
    Democrats are engaging in a brazen attempt here to 
intimidate and bully the justices of Supreme Court as they 
consider a challenge to Mississippi's pro-life law. As soon as 
the draft opinion was leaked, their activists on the left began 
to picket and harass the justices and their families in their 
homes. Democrats have threatened the justices by name in the 
press, on the steps of the Supreme Court, and in recent briefs 
to the Court, and now in this and previous Judiciary Committee 
hearings.
    We have jurisdiction of the American system of justice and 
the fact that we would be here trying to influence a pending 
opinion is unprecedented and dangerous to our institutions. So 
much for the Constitution, our system of justice, and our 
critical foundations and the principle of judicial 
independence.
    There is no right to abortion in the Constitution, period. 
Never was. It is not in its text, it is not in its structure, 
not in its meaning.
    Roe invented the right out of thin air and it was highly 
criticized from the moment that it was published. This has 
imposed a tragically consequential and a court-created social 
policy on the people of our country. As a result, as was said a 
moment ago, almost 65 million of America's unborn children have 
perished because of it.
    Because there is no right to an abortion in the 
Constitution, that question is left to the States for the 
people to decide. This is long overdue and after nearly a half-
century we are very hopeful and grateful that might finally 
happen.
    Ms. Goodwin reminded us just a moment ago that facts matter 
so let's talk about the underlying facts, because the facts and 
the law and the logic and the advancements in medical 
technology are clearly on the side of life.
    As the Susan B. Anthony list summarizes it well, ``The 
humanity of the unborn child is undeniable now thanks to 
advances in modern medicine and science.'' At six weeks, an 
unborn child has a beating heart and by 15 weeks unborn 
children can suck their thumbs, they have fully-formed noses 
and lips, eyes and eyebrows, and they can feel excruciating 
pain. These children deserve a voice in the American democratic 
process.
    In the recent Dobbs argument before the Supreme Court, 
Chief Justice Roberts pointed to the fact that the U.S. is an 
outlier to the vast majority of other countries' viability 
standards. He said, ``When you get to the viability standard, 
we share that standard with the People's Republic of China and 
North Korea.'' It is unconscionable to think that the United 
States is one of only seven countries that allows for abortions 
for any reason after 20 weeks.
    In our nation's birth certificate, we boldly declared that 
it is a self-evident truth that human beings are made by their 
Creator, and they are endowed by Him with certain unalienable 
rights. The first listed is the right to life for obvious 
reasons.
    All three of the Democrat Witnesses here today support and 
advocate for what they say is unrestricted abortion on demand. 
Let me ask Dr. Robinson.
    I could go to any of them, but you are the medical doctor. 
Based on your website and your testimony today you clearly 
support the right to abort a 20-week-old unborn child, so I 
would love for you to explain to us in your medical opinion at 
what point in pregnancy should having an abortion no longer be 
an option?
    Dr. Robinson. Thank you for the question. As a medical 
doctor, I understand that every pregnancy is unique and 
different. I also understand that patients need to have access 
to care, pregnant people, as the pregnancy progresses, and that 
may be for various reasons.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay.
    Dr. Robinson. So, I--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Let me ask you, do you support 
the right of a woman who is just seconds away from birthing a 
healthy child to have an abortion?
    Dr. Robinson. I think that the question that you're asking 
does not realistically reflect abortion care in the United 
States.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. In that scenario, would you 
support her right to abort that child?
    Dr. Robinson. I won't entertain theoreticals.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It is not a theoretical, ma'am.
    Dr. Robinson. That's not reality.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You are a medical doctor.
    Dr. Robinson. I am medical doctor and that has never 
happened in any healthcare--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Never happened in your practice, 
ma'am, but it happens. How about if a child is halfway out of 
the birth canal? Is an abortion permissible then?
    Dr. Robinson. Can you repeat your question?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. If a child is halfway delivered 
out of the birth canal, is it permissible to have an abortion? 
Would you support the right for an abortion then?
    Dr. Robinson. I can't even fathom that ever--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I am not asking you if you can 
fathom it. If it occurred, would you support that abortion or 
not? That is unrestricted abortion, right?
    Dr. Robinson. I can't answer a question that I can't 
imagine I--just like you probably can't imagine what you would 
do if your daughter was raped. If that hasn't happened, it may 
be difficult for you to--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay. You are not going to answer 
this question, but how about this one? How does one qualify as 
fully human? What makes a human being?
    Dr. Robinson. What makes a person a human being--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is right.
    Dr. Robinson. --is them being born, number one.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Oh.
    Dr. Robinson. That's why we have birthdays. Then, also, 
their individual DNA, them having autonomy, being able to Act 
and think autonomously--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay, but wait a minute. A 
newborn child lacks the immediate capacity--
    Dr. Robinson. --being able to breathe and live outside of 
the womb.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. A newborn child lacks the 
immediate capacity to make conscious deliberate choices, so is 
infanticide, okay?
    Dr. Robinson. I think what we're here to talk about is 
abortion care. What you're describing is something that is 
already illegal and there are laws on the books for that, so 
I'm not a proponent of restrictions.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You understand if Dobbs is handed 
down, the States will be able to make that decision, and there 
are some that will go that far. You need to be aware of what we 
are talking about today.
    I am out of time. I yield back.
    Dr. Robinson. There are laws on the books for that.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time is expired. The Witness 
may answer the question.
    Dr. Robinson. I'm sorry?
    Chair Nadler. I said the gentleman's time is expired. The 
Witness may answer the question.
    Dr. Robinson. Okay. In the instance that he's describing, 
there are already laws on the books for that. Those are 
criminals acts and so I'm not a proponent of any additional 
restrictions on people being able to access abortion care. I'm 
a proponent of us just enforcing the laws that are already on 
the books.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. What if the law is changed to 
allow for that?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I am mindful that the--Senator McConnell has already 
discussed publicly the concept of prohibiting abortion in every 
case, in every State, should the Court allow that to occur. So, 
really what we are talking about is the potential of 
politicians making decisions, taking the decisions away from 
individuals and really criminalizing healthcare for women. You 
have given an interesting testimony, but my question really 
goes to the other potential impacts of what is being discussed.
    Professor Goodwin, what impact would such a decision, if 
the draft were to become the Court's decision--what impact 
could that have on in vitro fertilization or contraception in 
your view? Could that become criminalized as well?
    Ms. Goodwin. It certainly could. So, I want to speak to two 
impacts: The first that we have to speak to is maternal 
mortality. The United States ranks 55th in the world in terms 
of maternal mortality--
    Ms. Lofgren. Correct.
    Ms. Goodwin. --not among its peer nations, but it is--ranks 
among Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, and Russia, places that allow for 
the stoning and lashing of women.
    More specifically to your question, yes, we could see in 
fact a dismantling of contraception access, access to being 
able to have IUDs, access to Plan B, which is used after a 
rape.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, let me follow up with--if I may with you 
on that, because in the draft opinion, Justice Alito really 
says there is no privacy right and also that there is no 
deeply-rooted, in this nation's history and tradition, right to 
abortion.
    Now, I look at the Constitution. Does not mention women. 
Certainly, the right of gay people to marry or for people of 
different races to marry is not deeply-rooted in the nation's 
history. Do you think that by extension that draft opinion 
could be used to take other rights away?
    Ms. Goodwin. Well, it certainly could be. It sends a very 
strong signal to States that are already inclined to do that, 
where State lawmakers and governors have already indicated that 
that's their interest, to impose civil punishments, criminal 
punishments, and begin stripping away rights that we've seen 
emerge over time. We've already seen this in Texas with regard 
to the governor pushing forward an Executive Order that would 
essentially punish parents who are providing affirmative care 
to their children who are trans. So, gay marriage is at stake. 
The ability to adopt if you are gay at stake. Interracial 
marriage at stake. It only takes one local county clerk to say 
I disagree.
    Ms. Lofgren. Let me go to some of the other issues. I have 
long been a proponent of preserving privacy rights of 
Americans, and I even am a founder of the bipartisan Fourth 
Amendment Caucus, which I chair. I am thinking about some of 
the other implications of the draft decision should that 
happen.
    If Roe is overturned, it seems that there is a risk that 
personal data could be more or less weaponized against women 
seeking basic healthcare. The media is full of stories, news 
stories identifying new risks to women's data privacy in a 
post-Roe world. For example, here is a headline sample from the 
Washington Post: ``Law enforcement may fully unleash its data 
collection tools on abortion'' or ``Without Roe, data will 
become a company headache and user nightmare. What police could 
find out about your illegal abortion.'' Vox points out that 
period apps and data privacy in the pro- or post-Roe v. Wade 
climate could actually be utilized to prosecute women.
    How could information gathered by such apps, Dr. Robinson, 
be used to target women who seek reproductive care in States 
with laws that criminalize care and could these apps track 
location, for example, to Planned Parenthood and be weaponized 
against clinics?
    You have to turn on your mic.
    Dr. Robinson. Oh, I apologize. It's hard to imagine how 
these apps that people are using to track their menstrual 
cycles and to try to control their fertility, how this will be 
used against people in a post-Roe world. I could not imagine us 
going back to the day where abortion access wouldn't be 
available, so that's just difficult for me to fathom at this 
time.
    Ms. Lofgren. My time is expired, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, the American people are facing real issues that 
need real solutions. Yesterday, gas prices hit an all-time high 
for the eighth day in a row. They are actually over $4 a gallon 
in all 50 States now. They are $4.39 back in my district in 
Cincinnati. I paid $5.19 here in DC, when I flew up Monday at a 
gas station right outside of Washington, DC. I understand out 
in California they are over $6 a gallon now. That is the 
equivalent of a massively-regressive tax hike. It is going to 
cost the American people thousands of dollars per year. That is 
just in the price of gas.
    Gas prices impact every other aspect of the economy, which 
means higher prices for everything. Perhaps even more 
concerning is the supply chain issues that continue to plague 
our nation. Now, young families can't even find baby formula to 
feed their newborn children. These shortages and the resulting 
price hikes have gone far beyond just being an inconvenience. 
They have become a desperate reality to American families 
across the country.
    Make no mistake, these are real problems, problems that the 
Biden Administration policies have caused and for which 
seemingly they have no workable solutions. Instead of working 
toward solutions to solve these and so many other problems that 
are adversely impacting so many Americans, this Committee is 
once again spending valuable time debating a hypothetical 
issue, a Supreme Court case which has not even come out now, 
rather than to try to solve real problems and come up with real 
solutions.
    This hearing is yet another attempt to distract the 
American people from the failures of the Biden Administration 
to address the problems they face right now, today, by instead 
scaring people with a hypothetical case, concerns that might 
happen down the road in the future.
    Today it is a hypothetical Supreme Court decision which has 
not even been rendered yet, but which was illegally leaked. It 
is pretty clear that the leaked opinion is being used to 
blatantly intimidate the United States Supreme Court. We have 
never had a draft Supreme Court people leaked like this before, 
at least not to my knowledge, and for good reason. The Court 
relies on the good faith of its Members to work through complex 
legal questions, sharing draft opinions so they can respond to 
each other's concerns.
    Through that process, opinions can evolve and develop and 
improve and sometimes change. In the end, the American people 
get a better understanding and a reasoned result, even when 
they may not ultimately agree with the outcome, as obviously in 
this country--on abortion, this country has been in dramatic 
disagreement for some time now. At least that is the way it has 
worked for the last 233 years up until now.
    One has to wonder how the Court will even function going 
forward. Will the justices be able to trust one another? Will 
they be able to overcome this historic breach and resume 
anything close to normal operations? Or is the Court, much like 
Congress, now condemned to hyper-partisanship?
    This dangerous unprecedented situation is what we should be 
discussing at this hearing. After all, this Committee has 
oversight over the Supreme Court and we are charged with making 
sure that it functions properly. Instead, this Committee is 
feeding the fire that may ultimately consume the United States 
Supreme Court's independence, and that is not a good day for 
America.
    Ms. Foster, as well as being a strong pro-life advocate, 
you are also an attorney, and I would like to ask, can you 
think of another example of a breach like this, certainly of 
this magnitude, in the history of the Supreme Court where a 
draft opinion has illegally leaked to the media and how 
damaging do you view such a breach to the functionality and 
reputation of the Court?
    Ms. Foster. I cannot think of one and that's because there 
hasn't been one. That leak and even this hearing, it really 
threatens the integrity of the Court. Today is wild speculation 
about what the Court may do, not what it has done. The leaker 
intended to bring chaos and public pressure to the reasoned 
deliberations of the Court as they attempted to determine the 
outcome of the case. It's simply wrong.
    Mr. Chabot. I know you and many pro-life advocates would 
like this to mean no more abortions in the country, but in 
reality, what actually happens?
    Ms. Foster. What actually happens if--
    Mr. Chabot. If this decision comes out and Roe would be 
overturned by the Supreme Court.
    Ms. Foster. If Roe is overturned, then the issue returns to 
the States. As Ron Paul has written, the federalization of 
abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but 
rather on a social and political construct created out of thin 
air by the Roe Court. This Dobbs opinion, should this be the 
final opinion, it would reverse that damage and return the 
issue to the people and to our elected representatives.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
    My time is expired, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair very much. I view this 
hearing as probably one of the most important hearings in my 
lifetime dealing with the absolute question of the survival of 
the Constitution.
    First, let me acknowledge the very weak distraction of a 
leak. I have absolutely no concern about a leak where a duly-
constituted body such as the Supreme Court would be prevented 
from doing its work. There is no question that the Republicans 
want a total nationwide ban on abortion with no exceptions for 
incest, no exceptions for rape, an intolerable inhuman posture 
that they would put America in.
    I think today I come claiming for women freedom, justice, 
equity, equality, and an absolute ban on politicians telling 
women what to do with their body.
    The CDC found in 2020 that non-Hispanic Black women 
suffered 55.3 percent deaths per 100,000 live births, a number 
2.9 times the rate of non-Hispanic White women, which means 
that in many instances, as loving as pregnancy can be for those 
who choose it, it can also mean death to women who happen to be 
African American and other minorities.
    So, let me ask questions to Dr. Goodwin first--Professor 
Goodwin as it relates to constitutional rights.
    We heard the question that abortion is not in the 
Constitution. For those who understand that the document is a 
living document, would you assess the question of the idea of 
ignoring the First Amendment because church services are not 
specifically mentioned in the--or synagogue services are not 
specifically mentioned, ignoring the Eighth Amendment, or 
ignoring the Fourth Amendment? Professor, could you analyze the 
importance of recognizing that Roe v. Wade is precedent in the 
Ninth Amendment dealing with privacy?
    Ms. Goodwin. Thank you very much for that question. First, 
over 233 years of the Supreme Court's existence, the Supreme 
Court has fashioned rights because the Ninth Amendment provides 
for, that is to say that not all rights have to be explicitly 
enumerated in the Constitution.
    The Supreme Court has the discretion through its 
interpretation of the Constitution to speak to matters that are 
not explicitly delineated. The drafters of the Constitution 
anticipated that they had not thought of all matters that would 
be important to America as it developed, but that there would 
be a Ninth Amendment that would allow for the Court to be able 
to further interpret as society emerged.
    At the time in which the Constitution was drafted, we 
didn't have trains, we didn't have planes, we did not have 
cars, we had no electric cars. We had none of the machineries 
of war that we currently have.
    So, as we look at other amendments too, from a Second 
Amendment perspective, there are certain artillery that we have 
today that has not anticipated at the time of the Second 
Amendment drafting.
    To the point that you made, when the First Amendment was 
drafted as well, there were certain articulations that we 
appreciate today that were not explicitly delineated within the 
context of the Constitution.
    It is also worth noting what the Constitution says. The 
Constitution says that people who are people in the United 
States are people that are born. It makes no mention of embryos 
or fetuses. It is also worth noting what the 13th Amendment 
says, and the 14th Amendment.
    If we appreciate that Members of Congress were free, not 
only Black men but also Black women, it said that there shall 
be no involuntary servitude. It explicitly also mentions that 
Black people shall have, and this includes women, liberty and 
freedom. This is incredibly important when one looks at--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Ms. Arrambide, you lived under 
the horrors of the Texas S.B. 8. Thank you for your father's 
life and legacy.
    Tell me what it means to have a stalking provision, meaning 
that women can be exposed, and a bounty can be given to them 
under the Texas law, and that law spreading across America, 
along with an absolute ban on abortion.
    Ms. Arrambide, are you there?
    Ms. Arrambide. Yes, thank you for that question. Since S.B. 
8 went into effect, people have been terrified because 
extremists have been essentially deputized as bounty hunters to 
come after people that they think might have been aiding, 
abetting, or providing abortion care. That's had a chilling 
effect for people trying to access abortion care.
    People can't exercise their constitutional right to have 
abortions. That's not okay, and it's about to spread throughout 
the country if this decision goes into effect. So, it's 
terrifying.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. 
Gohmert.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank, and I yield back.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the 
Witnesses here today.
    Ms. Foster, we've heard a great deal about it's my body, 
it's my choice. The same people that said that seem to feel 
like if it comes to a vaccination, it's not your body and it's 
not your choice. We get to tell you whether you have 
vaccinations or not, regardless of what the risks are.
    Do you believe people have the right to choose what happens 
to their own bodies?
    Ms. Foster. I believe in protecting every human being, no 
matter who they are, where they are, any other aspect about 
them. Whatever you call that is what I'm for. That absolutely 
includes human beings in the womb.
    Mr. Gohmert. Yeah, well, it's interesting. Are you familiar 
with the law? State and Federal law does not recognize a 
child's being mature enough to enter in legally binding 
contracts, so that normally it is a parent that is required to 
make decisions in the best interest of the child's body, 
correct?
    Ms. Foster. Correct, yes.
    Mr. Gohmert. So, you've obviously been working in the pro-
life movement for a long time. Do you think it's an appropriate 
presumption that a parent will choose to do what's in the best 
interests of a baby's own body, since they can't make the 
choice for themselves?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely, we should be protecting every human 
being.
    Mr. Gohmert. Do you believe there should be a presumption 
that a parent will make a decision for the best interests of 
the child's body?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Gohmert. We've seen lots of problems. We've heard a 
testimony about the mental duress of carrying a child. Of 
course, I'm sure you're aware of what's called postpartum 
depression. Some have it very severely.
    I'm wondering if a mother is suffering severe depression as 
a result of having a child that she's not mentally and 
physically able to take care of, do you believe that the mother 
should have the right, like to drown a child, to get rid of the 
child because of the mental stress and duress and problems that 
the mother is having?
    Ms. Foster. Of course not, that would be horrifying. That's 
why we have safe haven laws to provide support and resources 
and an outlet for women in difficult situations.
    Mr. Gohmert. From what you've said already, you seem to 
feel like the child's body does belong to the child, but relies 
on the parent to make decisions for the child's best wellbeing, 
correct?
    Ms. Foster. I trust that people are looking out for the 
best interest of all human beings and are supporting their 
right to life.
    Mr. Gohmert. Are you--well, are you familiar with premature 
babies, preemies?
    Ms. Foster. Of course, yes.
    Mr. Gohmert. Do you find that it seems they have an 
inherent desire to live?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely. When you visit a NICU you see them 
fighting for their ability to live, for every breath.
    Mr. Gohmert. Yeah, and that's a good term, fighting for the 
ability to live. From our own daughter that was born eight to 
ten weeks prematurely, we were sent to a higher-level ICU, 
neonatal ICU, because they had a higher survival rate.
    When I got there my wife had to stay at the hospital where 
she had been and encouraged me to go do anything I could. I 
began to see why the survival rate was so high there, because 
the doctor said you got to sit down right here.
    That baby can't see you properly, but she knows your voice. 
You stroke her little face, her hands. She grabbed the end of 
my finger, and I couldn't move for eight hours because, as the 
doctor said, she's drawing strength, she's drawing life from 
you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Gohmert. That's the role of a parent, and I thank you 
for your being here.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Foster, let me ask you a question: Are you in favor of 
outlawing abortion in all 50 States?
    Ms. Foster. I believe in protecting every human person, no 
matter who or where they are. So, whatever you call that is 
what I'm for.
    Mr. Cohen. So, you're in favor of outlawing abortion in all 
50 States. Do you think that should be done by the Federal 
government in protecting all those individuals, as you call 
them?
    Ms. Foster. I don't think that we have gotten to that point 
necessarily. We haven't--what we've put it on the Women's 
Health Protection Act. So, we've seen the converse, the 
codification of--
    Mr. Cohen. If Senator McConnell was able to go forward and 
have a bill to outlaw abortion federally, which is not 
prohibited from this Congress from doing such, would you be in 
favor of Congress prohibiting abortion in all 50 States?
    Ms. Foster. I would be in favor of protecting every human 
being no matter where they are.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you. What if a person was impregnated by 
rape or incest. Would you be in favor of an abortion then, or 
still against abortion?
    Ms. Foster. I would say that every human being is 
inherently valuable.
    Mr. Cohen. You've said that many times. So, basically, what 
you're saying is you are against an exception for rape or 
incest.
    So, if somebody is raped, you are saying they would have to 
bear that child because you consider that fetus a human being. 
So, that child would be brought into this world even though the 
woman was forced into sex by possibly and probably somebody who 
she had no affinity towards whatsoever.
    I find that abhorrent to think that's where we are. We 
are--many States are requiring and concerned about forcing 
young people to wear masks to protect--which protects others, 
not them.
    They want them to bear children, they want to force them to 
bear children even if they're raped. Even they are having sex 
or raped by a family member, which is incest, which can be 
problems genealogically if they have the child and the child 
would develop, the fetus.
    So, this is what we've got. We've got an effort to outlaw 
abortion in all 50 States and to do it by congressional law if 
possible. If that Senate and the House become Republican, that 
will happen.
    It will be outlawed here in all 50 States. Not just 
Mississippi, not just Louisiana, not just Arkansas and Texas 
and Oklahoma, and all those other red States, everywhere. That 
is pre-Roe v. Wade.
    I'll tell you what happened pre-Roe v. Wade. I was only 
about 14 or 15 years old. I lived in California. I had a 
relative who lived in New York State, and she became pregnant. 
She was not ready to have a family.
    She made that decision, the decision she made, which she 
could afford because she had wealthy parents and wealthy 
family, was to fly from New York to California and then to go 
down to Mexico and get an abortion.
    It turned out to be safe and fine and good. The only reason 
she could do it is she had money and the resources to do it. 
People in small rural areas in the South and other places 
without wealth could not afford it. They had to go back-alley 
abortionists and sometimes lose their life because it wasn't 
legal.
    They had to possibly raise a lot of money to get somewhere. 
They didn't have the money to get to California and to go to 
Mexico. We will have abortion by financial status if this 
happens. It'll happen in Mexico or it'll happen back alley. If 
you've got enough money, you'll probably find somebody that 
could do it.
    In Memphis, you'll have to go to Illinois, which is also 
expensive and time-consuming. You don't know what the laws will 
be in Tennessee, whether they follow Texas and put a bounty on 
people's heads for helping to finance folks to go and get an 
abortion. That is anathema.
    It is wrong what happened in this country in the sixties 
when abortion was illegal, and the wealthy could afford it but 
the non-wealthy couldn't. It's wrong to try to protect and care 
about people's rights to wear a mask or not wear a mask but not 
the right to have and bear a child or not get a family, even if 
you might be 12 or 13 years old.
    Now, abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Fetus 
is not mentioned in the Constitution either. The Constitution 
doesn't say anything about when life starts. That is something 
the Courts have to decide, because it's not mentioned in the 
Constitution.
    For the Courts to absolve themselves of it and get away 
from it is wrong. Three justices said Roe is settled law, Roe 
is the law, it's settled, it is stare decisis. It was not, and 
some on the other side have said terrible decision, wrong from 
the beginning and just terribly wrong.
    It was right, said Kavanaugh. It was right, said Gorsuch. 
It was right, said Barrett. It's right then, and it's right 
now.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Professor Goodwin, is a 20-week pregnancy, unborn child, a 
human being under the Constitution?
    Ms. Goodwin. Under the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, 
it recognizes foreign individuals as being citizens of the 
United States.
    Mr. Issa. No, no, okay. Born. So, is it your testimony that 
constitutionally prior to the term ``born'' being exercised, 
the unborn have no rights and they are not human beings?
    Ms. Goodwin. According to the Constitution--
    Mr. Issa. No, not--
    Ms. Goodwin. Born individuals are citizens of the United 
States. According to American--
    Mr. Issa. I'm asking for the conclusion, as a 
constitutional scholar, the unborn, prior to their delivery, 
are not persons under the Constitution. The Constitution itself 
or the 14th Amendment which specifically says born, is that 
your testimony?
    Ms. Goodwin. That is what the Constitution says and that is 
what this Congress--
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    Ms. Goodwin. Adopted in the 14th Amendment.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Professor.
    Ms. Foster, in your opinion, is a child sucking its thumb, 
knowing if it's left- or right-handed, able to feel pain, but 
not yet delivered from the mother, does that child to you 
represent a human being?
    Ms. Foster. To me and to every embryology textbook out 
there, yes. If they're not human, what are they? It's not 
courts that determine reality. The reality of human life is 
that a child is a human being.
    Mr. Issa. Now, under existing law, if someone were to kill 
that 22-24-week gestation, pregnancy, is that a crime in 
virtually every State, including under Federal law?
    Ms. Foster. In virtually every State, thanks to Roe v. Wade 
and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, abortion can be--
    Mr. Issa. No, no, I said if let's say the father of a child 
kills that child. In other words, not the mother's decision. If 
an outsider kills the unborn, is it a crime, not just battery, 
but a crime in Federal law in most States?
    Ms. Foster. Yes, that's a crime in virtually every State.
    Mr. Issa. Okay, so notwithstanding the Constitution, if you 
kill the unborn, you've killed a human being under State law, 
even though abortion is legal.
    Well, let's just go through, since we're on the subject of 
law for a moment, Ms. Foster, behind me under 18 U.S.C. 1507, 
is it a Federal crime to protest near a residence occupied by a 
judge, a jury with the intent--or jury--with the intent to 
influence the decision of a pending case?
    Ms. Foster. It certainly is.
    Mr. Issa. Isn't it also, even if you went to the prosecutor 
or defense attorneys, also a crime?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. So, behind me, I'm trying to understand this, 
here's a picture, and it's--and they're using a megaphone in 
front of Justice Alito's home, and they're clearly trying to 
influence it. So, is that a crime?
    Ms. Foster. It is.
    Mr. Issa. So, under 18 U.S.C. 1507, people are committing 
crimes. Why is it we're not hearing it denounced by the pro-
choice movement, who say that they respect this decision as 
long it goes their way?
    Ms. Foster. Because it fits the narrative. The leaker 
intended to bring chaos and public pressure into the Dobbs 
case. This hearing shows that they succeeded, and those photos 
demonstrate that the public is, in fact, responding to that 
leak as was planned.
    Mr. Issa. Now, these protesters in front of Justice 
Barrett, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Alito, they don't appear to 
be having the opposite in any way trying to influence the pro-
choice, if you will, Members of the Court. Is that correct that 
there's no similar intimidation is going on?
    Ms. Foster. That's correct.
    Mr. Issa. Okay. I want you to hear a quote and give me your 
comment on it. When someone says,

        I think it is reprehensible. Stay away from homes and families 
        of elected officials and Members of the Court. You could 
        express yourself, exercise your First Amendment rights. But to 
        go after them in their homes, to do anything of a threatening 
        nature, certainly anything violent, is absolutely 
        reprehensible.

    Would you agree with that?
    Ms. Foster. I certainly would.
    Mr. Issa. Senator Dick Durbin agrees with it, but he's been 
one of the lone voices willing to denounce it. I have not heard 
it denounced even by one member on this dais on the other side 
of the aisle.
    So, Ms. Foster, a senior correspondent for Vox.com and a 
former Federal judge clerk tweeted the following:

        Seriously, shout-out to whoever the hero was within the Supreme 
        Court who said, f-bomb, using a term, it, let's burn the place 
        down.

    Is that a crime in your estimation?
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman expired, so a brief 
answer from the Witness.
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. Mr. Chair, yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Professor Goodwin, Georgia has a six-week ban on abortions. 
It's also a State that is the most dangerous State in the 
nation for pregnant women. Approximately half of the counties 
in Georgia have no OB physicians or no OB/GYN, no family 
physician providing obstetrical care. No midwives. Half of the 
State.
    Furthermore, hospital labor and delivery units have been 
closing across Georgia for the last several decades. In 2015, 
only 46 of 159 counties had such units.
    Professor Goodwin, isn't it ironic that States like Georgia 
want to force women to remain pregnant but seem unwilling to 
help women stay alive during pregnancy?
    Ms. Goodwin. That's right, it's one of the most egregious 
aspects of what we see today in our country. The States that 
have been most active in crafting anti-abortion bans, abortion 
bans, have been the States with the highest rates of maternal 
mortality.
    Disproportionately, those who have been most affected have 
been Black women. It's really been a death sentence for them. 
For that reason, if nothing more, it's important that this 
hearing is being held, because there's been so little attention 
to the fact that Black women have suffered in grave and 
inhumane ways in those States with abortion bans.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Dr. Robinson, is it fair 
to say there is a link between abortion access and maternal 
health?
    Dr. Robinson. Yes, that is fair to say. There's a 
supporting documentation that shows that without access to 
abortion care, that the maternal mortality rate will continue 
to rise.
    I'm glad that you pointed out the fact that many States 
are--they have decreased access to midwifery care, decreased 
access to healthcare resources, labor and delivery units that 
are closing down, people having to travel further and further 
to access maternity care.
    Particularly in Alabama, we also criminalize women who do 
not present for maternity care. It's considered a form of 
neglect.
    In a community where you don't have access to those 
resources and you cannot travel to meet the physician, it is 
not fair to punish those women but then to try to force to 
carry pregnancies to term when they don't have the resources to 
support that.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Ms. Foster, you've 
seemed reticent to answer the question whether or not you were 
in favor of a State--I mean a Federal ban on abortions passed 
by the Congress. I've looked at your Twitter account. You do 
have a Twitter account, right? Correct?
    Ms. Foster. Correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. On May 2, the day that the decision 
was leaked about the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, you 
posted a video--an audio message on your Twitter account, did 
you not?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You put forward the question, 
``What does a post-Roe America look like? What comes after 
Roe?'' Right?
    Ms. Foster. Correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You answered your own question by 
saying, ``We never really wanted Roe's reversal to make 
abortion a State issue where some States protect life and other 
States continue to kill and dismember.'' That's what you said, 
right?
    Ms. Foster. That's correct, and I don't believe I was 
reticent in answering the question.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You also said that Roe--you said, 
``After Roe, we don't want more victims, we want abortion 
abolition.''
    Ms. Foster. That is correct. I believe I'm protecting every 
human being no matter where they are, so I'm not reticent at 
all.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You also said that your end goal 
was for the United States Supreme Court to declare that 
abortion was against the Constitution.
    Ms. Foster. I believe it was former President Clinton who 
called for abortion to be rare--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. That's what you said.
    Ms. Foster. So, I--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. That's what you said.
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely, yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. You are a Republican who 
supports Republicans. They called you as a Witness, and that is 
the Republican plan, for women in American to not have a right 
to an abortion, whether or not it be the first, the second, or 
in one percent of those cases that happen in the--beyond the 
20th week.
    You don't women to have that right for any reason 
whatsoever, to protect or save the life of the mother. Or, too, 
in the cases of rape and incest. Isn't that a fact?
    Ms. Foster. A more humane and more just America would 
provide protection and resources for all human beings.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman--the time of the 
gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Buck.
    Mr. Buck. Ms. Foster, I'm going to direct my questions to 
you. What I'm wondering is how will America be judged by future 
generations, future societies? When we learn about the great 
empires and cultures in school and in world history, we think 
of the ancient Greeks and Romans and the--Great Britain, the 
Mongols, the Mayans, the various Chinese dynasties.
    We study the art and architecture, we celebrate the 
science, technical, and medical advances of the people, and we 
marvel at the military power of the great empires. There seems 
like the great cultures all have an asterisk. The Greeks and 
Romans had slaves. The Mayans and the Qin Dynasty performed 
human sacrifice as to appease their gods.
    When America is evaluated in the future, certainly scholars 
will see us as an exceptional nation, a country with great 
scientific and technological advances, beautiful art and 
architecture, the most powerful military in the world, 
tremendous advances in civil rights for minorities, great 
universities, amazing agricultural accomplishments, space 
travel, and energy production.
    What will the asterisk be for America? Did we do enough to 
help those with physical handicaps, mental handicaps, and 
mental diseases? Did we provide a pathway to prosperity for the 
poor?
    How did we address homelessness and crime? What do we do 
for the most vulnerable in our society, for those who don't 
have a voice, can't vote, and don't have an advocate?
    We know, for example, that an unborn baby has a heartbeat 
at six weeks, develops pain receptors at seven weeks, has arms, 
legs, fingers, and toes at ten weeks. Can kick and will jump if 
startled at ten weeks. Will respond to touch throughout almost 
the entire body at 13-14 weeks. Has fully developed heart at 15 
weeks.
    Ms. Foster, how will future generations and future cultures 
judge how we treated the most vulnerable in our society?
    Ms. Foster. I'm ashamed to think of it. I am hopeful that 
the eventual Dobbs decision will be the first step in the right 
direction towards some kind of reckoning.
    Mr. Buck. I appreciate your answer. I think that we could 
go into more detail, quite frankly, because those that don't 
have a voice, those that don't have political power are often 
ignored. When we are judged, I think we will be examined for 
how we treated the unborn in this country.
    Not the unborn that were caused by rape or incest, but 
millions on millions, since 1973, that have been killed as a 
result of abortion policies in this country.
    Millions far exceed the historical accounts of other 
cultures. I think that we will be judged harshly for how we 
treated the most vulnerable, how we treated folks who didn't 
have political power. I think it's unfortunate. I think it's 
unfortunate that we can't just for a moment reflect on those 
that need our protection.
    Any last comments before my time runs out?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely. It may not appear that way from the 
other side of the aisle here, but this really is a unifying 
issue for most Americans. Fifty-one percent, according to a 
2021 Gallup poll, believe that abortion should be either 
illegal in all circumstances or illegal in all, but the rarest 
circumstances.
    Less than a third believe that abortion should be legal 
under all circumstances. Most Americans agree.
    In fact, as a proud member of the board of Democrats for 
Life of America as well, I know that, in fact, a third of 
Democrats call themselves pro-life, and the number swings more 
and more pro-life the more radical bills are put forward by the 
other side of the aisle.
    So, when we see the New York Reproductive Health Act, for 
example, we see Democrats more and more calling themselves pro-
life because they look at that kind of bill and they say if 
that's what pro-choice is, I want no part of it.
    So, we welcome that. We welcome them into the pro-life 
side. I see that there's so much hope for an America that 
pursues more humane solutions for all human beings.
    Mr. Buck. Other than China and North Korea and some of 
those countries, how do we compare to countries in other parts 
of the world?
    Ms. Foster. We have among the most radical abortion policy 
in the world. Our company is Canada, China, and North Korea. Of 
course, Canada does not have a national law on the subject at 
all.
    We are dramatically more radical than any country in 
Europe, for example, to which we so often compare ourselves. 
Our abortion law is so far beyond what other countries have 
chosen through their elected officials, and what the American 
people would choose and what we elect our elected officials to 
do as they represent us.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Deutch.
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to talk about 
three issues that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have brought up today, political power, intimidation, and real 
problems.
    I want to start by asking Ms. Goodwin, is there any amount 
of political power that a 12-year-old could wage to stop her 
from being raped by a relative?
    Ms. Goodwin. No, there isn't.
    Mr. Deutch. Ms. Goodwin, is there any amount of political 
power that a young woman walking down the street, raped on the 
street violently and impregnated, is there any political power 
that woman has that she can wield to prevent that pregnancy 
from happening?
    Ms. Goodwin. No.
    Mr. Deutch. Finally, Dr. Robinson, is there any amount of 
political power that a woman who comes to see you who has 
desperately wanted to get pregnant, only to learn that the 
problem with her pregnancy and the development of the fetus may 
mean either that the fetus will be born with perhaps organs or 
develop outside of the body, or that her life may be at risk 
for delivering that child, or both?
    Is there any amount of political power that woman who so 
desperately wanted to be pregnant and finds herself in this 
situation, is there political power that could have prevented 
that from happening?
    Dr. Robinson. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Deutch. So, this is about power. Let me just ask, it's 
the power for women to be able to make these decisions that are 
protected by the Constitution.
    Let me ask, and I'm sorry, is it Arrambide?
    Ms. Arrambide. Arrambide.
    Mr. Deutch. Arrambide, sorry. Let me ask you about 
intimidation, Ms. Arrambide. Tell me about the intimidation 
that your father felt doing his job helping women.
    Ms. Arrambide. Sure. So, my father provided abortions in 
the seventies, eighties, and nineties. One of the things that 
was prevalent at that time was the wanted dead abortion 
providers posters.
    So, he was a target of a lot of harassment and terrorism. 
He wore a Kevlar vest to work every day. We lived in gated 
communities. He had an FBI agent assigned to him. He kept this 
pretty under wraps so that I wouldn't be exposed to it.
    When I went to college, I was called by someone that was 
harassing me and trying to get his home address, despite the 
fact that he'd had the same office for years. The FBI agent was 
sure that he was going to target my father. That's what he 
lived with.
    He did his work and he provided care for so many Texans 
across central and South Texas because he was a hero. He 
provided healthcare that they so desperately needed and wanted.
    Mr. Deutch. There are so many women and their families who 
are grateful for that. Dr. David Gunn, who was gunned down 
outside of an abortion clinic where he worked doing that work.
    Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was shot by a sniper through his 
kitchen window because of the work that he did. The two 
receptionists who were killed, the security guard who was 
killed.
    These aren't theoretical conversations about intimidation. 
There are people whose jobs have been to help women take action 
that's been protected by the Constitution who are dead because 
of it. That's intimidation.
    I want to finish with this. Real problems. It is true, the 
price of gas is a real problem. It is in my community and so 
many others. Shortage of baby food a real problem, baby 
formula.
    Dr. Robinson, let me let you finish. What's the real 
problem a woman faces when we slam the door on them and tell 
them rape, incest, they may die of pregnancy, none of that 
matters anymore? What's that real problem?
    Dr. Robinson. Thank you. First, I just wanted to mention, 
when you talk about the harassment, and I think you for 
highlighting that.
    When they put the pictures up there, I actually thought 
those were pictures outside of my office. That's the harassment 
that abortion providers and our patients face on a daily basis. 
It's not nearly as appalling to the other side when it's 
happening to us.
    When you talk about what the real problems that people face 
the Turnaway Study, it clearly highlights the implications 
people not being able to access abortion care.
    Many of these people are going to fall into poverty. They 
have difficulty caring for the children that they already have. 
That's what the real problem is.
    Mr. Deutch. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I seek 
unanimous consent to enter into a record a statement for the 
record by Sarah Parshall Perry, Senior Legal Fellow with the 
Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage 
Foundation.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                        MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA

                             FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
    Dr. Robinson, I asked you earlier how one qualifies as 
being fully human, and you responded by saying that no one 
becomes a human, or that someone does become a human at the 
moment of birth. I found that absolutely stunning since you are 
not a political activist or an advocate, but you present 
yourself and purport to be a medical doctor.
    Your answers deny the plain truth of science and medical 
technology that anyone can see and understand, even if they 
don't have a medical degree. Obviously, I don't need to cite 
volumes of medical journals to prove the fact that an unborn 
child is a human being.
    As the Life Training Institute summarizes,

        From the earliest stages of development, the unborn are 
        distinct, living, and whole human beings. They are not mere 
        parts of larger human beings, like skin cells are, but whole 
        human entities capable of directing their own internal growth 
        and development. This is not just a religious view, but a 
        matter of the science of embryology.

    In its 1859 report on criminal abortion, the American 
Medical Association, no less, acknowledged that, ``The 
independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a 
living being was a scientific truth.'' Nothing has changed 
since that time. For more than 150 years doctors have known 
that life begins at conception.
    A 1981 report to the United States Senate states,

        Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that 
        conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being. 
        And a being that is alive is a member of the human species. 
        There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless 
        medical, biological, and scientific writings.

    So, there's a picture up here. This is not a mere clump of 
cells. This is not an animal or some unknown species. Ma'am, 
that's a human being. All of you here are confusing human value 
with human function. You are defining personhood by what 
somebody does rather than what they are.
    Scott Klusendorf summarized it this way, he said, 
``Although human beings differ immensely with respect to 
talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are 
nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.'' 
Humans have value simply because they are human. If you deny 
this, it's difficult to say why objective human rights should 
apply to anyone.
    As I noted earlier, it is a self-evident truth that all 
human beings are made by their creator and endowed by him with 
certain inalienable rights. The first listed in our declaration 
is the right to life.
    Since the medical doctor here wants to deny the facts and 
reality, let me ask the abortion advocate, Ms. Arrambide, to 
answer my questions on this subject. Ma'am, you testified that 
you are, ``Unapologetic in seeking in unrestricted abortion 
access.'' So, I'm wondering at what point is it not okay to 
abort a child, what age of gestation?
    Ms. Arrambide. I trust all people to determine what they 
can and can't do with their bodies. Full stop. I also believe 
that human rights, including access to medical care that they 
need within their communities, is something that should be 
afforded everyone.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Great, okay, so you support late-
term abortion?
    Ms. Arrambide. I support all people and trust all--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That means late-term abortion. Do 
you support partial birth abortion? In other words, the child 
is half-delivered, and then the woman says, my right, I want to 
take that one out. You support that?
    Ms. Arrambide. I trust people to make decisions about their 
body.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Wow, wow. Okay. What about--so 
abortion should be allowed then, by your definition, for any 
reason, for any purpose, at any stage, right?
    Ms. Arrambide. I trust people to make decisions about their 
body. Then when relevant, I think that they need to consult 
their medical practitioners--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay.
    Ms. Arrambide. Not Congress.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay, if it is--listen, let me 
just ask you this question. If it is not lawful and morally 
acceptable to take the life of a 10-year-old child, I assume 
you agree with that, right? That would be wrong, correct?
    Ms. Arrambide. I believe that is wrong.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay, and a two-year-old child, 
same thing, that would be murder, we would all agree that's 
wrong.
    Then what is the principal distinction between the human 
being that is two-years-old, or nine-months-old, or one-week-
old, or one-hour-old, and one that is eight inches further up 
the birth canal in the utero? What's the difference? Why is it 
okay in the latter case and not the former cases?
    Ms. Arrambide. I trust people to determine what to do with 
their own bodies.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Wow.
    Ms. Arrambide. Full stop.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Wow. Full stop indeed. That 
describes right there exactly what this is about. There is a 
legal issue here, but underneath that is a moral issue. It's 
about reality, it's about science, the advancement of medical 
technology.
    You're talking about unborn children, and your full stop is 
that you will support the termination of that child at any 
time, and that is frightening. This is why this decision should 
be turned to the popular will of the people, and hopefully 
they'll protect the sanctity of every single human life and 
live up to the standards of our Declaration of Independence.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Bass.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing.
    Professor Goodwin, I know that some scholars, including 
yourself, have pointed out that some of the States, most eager 
to ban abortion are those with a history of Jim Crow and voter 
suppression. Can you speak to this relationship and what this 
could mean for other civil rights and liberties, including for 
people who live in blue States such as myself, California?
    Ms. Goodwin. So, historically, during the period of 
slavery, we had Confederate slave States, many of those are 
States that today seek to ban abortion, that denied African 
Americans fundamental human rights. This Congress provided 
those rights through the 13th Amendment and 14th Amendment, 
upheld by the United States Supreme Court.
    We've seen the dismantling of those rights through voter 
suppression. Historically we've seen African American women 
suffer in inordinate ways, and that suffering continues. In the 
State of Mississippi, the subject of the Dobbs opinion, 80 
percent of cardiac deaths in that State during pregnancy are 
Black women.
    In the State of Mississippi, Black women are 118 times more 
likely to die by carrying to term a pregnancy than by having an 
abortion. In those States, we still see disparities in terms of 
pay for Black women.
    These histories are something that are undeniable and that 
place us in the space of a new Jane Crow, a system that from 
slavery through Jim Crow has resulted in the unequal treatment 
of Black women.
    I thank you for the question.
    Ms. Bass. Sure, and just along those--along that line, what 
do you think if the Roe decision is overturned, which is where 
we believe it's going, how do you think, though, that relates 
or puts in jeopardy other civil rights and liberties?
    Ms. Goodwin. Well, other civil rights and liberties are at 
stake, even though in the leaked draft opinion, Justice Alito 
suggested there are some guardrails around those, such as 
contraceptive access.
    That's actually hard to credit and will be more illusory 
than real since Justice Alito himself authored the opinion in 
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which itself fought to dismantle part 
of the Affordable Care Act provision that companies would 
provide comprehensive contraceptive care to their employees.
    Burwell v. Hobby Lobby provided exception in that case for 
companies that identified themselves as having religious 
rights, something that had never existed before Justice Alito's 
opinion.
    So, we see LGBTQ equality on the line, contraceptive access 
on the line, including IUDs, which are not abortifacients but 
that are popular forms of contraception. There are already 
State lawmakers that are saying they're seeking to do away with 
those fundamental rights associated with contraception.
    Next, we will see also sex education targeted as well by 
these individuals in these legislatures.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you. It's an incredible place we find 
ourselves in now.
    Ms. Arrambide, one, I apologize for the line of questioning 
you just experienced by my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle. I would like to ask you your opinion. Justice Coney 
Barrett suggested that because adoption exists, there really is 
no need for abortion.
    I wanted to know what you thought of that statement, and I 
also want to know what Professor Goodwin thinks of that 
statement.
    Ms. Arrambide. I don't believe adoption is an alternative 
to an abortion. It's an alternative to, after giving birth, 
giving the child up for adoption or keeping the child. It's not 
an alternative to abortion.
    Ms. Bass. Let me just ask, I asked you that question 
especially because I heard your testimony about where you were 
in your life at that time.
    Ms. Arrambide. Sure.
    Ms. Bass. So, I'm just, that's how I wanted you to think 
about it from that perspective and listening to your very 
impactful testimony.
    Ms. Arrambide. Sure. If at 25, I had been forced to carry a 
pregnancy to term, I would not have survived. I have no doubt 
that I would not be alive today. I would not have been alive to 
continue or to start my medical treatment for my mental health 
issues.
    I wouldn't have been alive to have two pregnancies, two 
health pregnancies, despite how difficult those pregnancies 
were. I wouldn't be the mother that I am today and have the two 
wonderful children that are my whole world. Because pregnancy--
    Ms. Bass. Do you say that because of your mental health 
status at the time, that you were not well?
    Ms. Arrambide. Absolutely. My mental health status, I 
wasn't able to get up out of my bed. I wasn't able to walk my 
dog, take a shower. That happened for months and months at a 
time.
    As someone that's gone through two complete pregnancies and 
carried two pregnancies to term who had placenta previa, who 
had a breech birth, who had an emergency C-section that could 
have taken the life of my child or myself, I absolutely, like, 
unequivocally believe that if I had been forced to carry a 
pregnancy to term when I was 25, I would not have survived.
    Not only because of my mental health, but because pregnancy 
is more dangerous. When you don't want to be pregnant, you 
don't want to continue your pregnancy, there are so many things 
that can affect you and cannot have a good outcome.
    So, yes, I believe that I am so lucky that I was able to 
access the abortion care I needed within my community without 
many obstacles. I wish that for anybody who's pregnant and 
doesn't want to be.
    Chair Nadler. The time of gentlelady has expired. Mrs. 
Spartz.
    Mrs. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This is an important issue, but we are Judiciary Committee. 
So, even though this issue is say life and death issue, we'll 
talk about judicial implications and we'll talk law a little 
bit. So, I want to talk to Professor Goodwin a little bit.
    What's happened if Casey and Roe are overturned? Can you 
still have abortion?
    Ms. Goodwin. If Casey and Roe are overturned, then it means 
that there will be laws that are triggered throughout the 
United States where in some States, there will not be access to 
abortion because it will be criminally punished.
    In some other States there will be access to abortion. So, 
people who will need those services will have to travel, if 
they can, to get to those States where they can be able to 
terminate their pregnancies.
    Mrs. Spartz. Right, so there is still going to be States 
will have to decide, and will have a situation, we'll have some 
more liberal States, some more conservative States.
    Ultimately the States will make these decisions at the 
State level, which is really how we were founded as a country. 
The States have making decisions and the Court is going to make 
a decision that, constitutionality decision.
    So, who do you think should make a final decision on 
something where it is your constitutional rights, which entity 
at our Federal level?
    Ms. Goodwin. Well, to be clear, there was actually a civil 
war about fundamental rights in the United States that were not 
just about some States being able to carry on whatever they 
wanted to do. That was the very point of the Civil War, where 
the lives of Black people were actually at stake.
    So, if you would then repeat because I thought that was 
important to clarify.
    Mrs. Spartz. So, what is decision, we have a constitutional 
amendment, right. If the States decide to do that, then we can 
fight wars, but ultimately which power, which branch of our 
Federal government has an ultimate decision to decide what is 
protected by our constitution, which branch?
    Ms. Goodwin. Well, the Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter 
of the land, but--
    Mrs. Spartz. So, the Supreme Court. So, do you believe that 
we have Supreme Court as an authority? Please answer, do you 
believe that Supreme Court authority to rule?
    I might maybe didn't like some other rulings, and I don't, 
but do you think that is really the decision of the Supreme 
Court? We're giving them that authority.
    Do you believe every time we don't like, we should start 
packing the Court? What do you think it will lead to? Because 
you don't like decisions, I might not like decisions. So, what 
is going to create our country with every time that we do not 
like some decisions, we start mangling the Supreme Court. Do 
you think it's dangerous?
    Ms. Goodwin. Well, with all due respect, so that I can 
answer your question.
    Mrs. Spartz. Yes, please.
    Ms. Goodwin. I would say that it has been this Congress 
that has played a very important role in American law. It was 
this Congress, for example, that ratified the 13th Amendment 
abolishing slavery.
    It was this Congress that ratified and drafted the 14th 
Amendment, which provided citizenship and equal protection 
under law and substantive due process to people who were then 
freed from human enslavement.
    It was this Congress that then struck down Jim Crow laws in 
the State that basically tethered Black people to second class 
citizenship through thousands of laws that denied them 
significant personhood. It was this Congress through the 1964 
Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act--
    Mrs. Spartz. That's right, I completely agree with you, so 
we have a process, right. We have a process of Supreme Court 
rulings, and we have constitutional amendments, right, that 
have been ratified by the State.
    Do you think this is still a valid process? Do you support 
that this is the valid process of our constitutional republic?
    Ms. Goodwin. Thank you so much for that question. That is 
the process of this republic, and this has been important that 
the Supreme Court and this Congress has stepped in where there 
have been States that have wanted to enforce human enslavement, 
kidnap, and trafficking of African Americans. It has been this 
Congress that has played a pivotal role--
    Mrs. Spartz. No doubt, but it has to go through the 
constitutional amendment. Do you think Congress should be 
exercising pressure by packing the Court and putting pressure 
on the judges and activists on the Court?
    Or do you think it's important to have a strength of that 
institution to hold us to the constitutional republic? Do you 
believe that political pressure on the Court is a good idea, 
regardless of what it is? Because it can come from both sides.
    Ms. Goodwin. Well, it's a very important question that you 
asked about these institutions being able to operate 
independently, and that is critically important, such as this 
hearing today, which is directly connected to urgent healthcare 
matters in the United States. So, I'm glad that you and your 
colleagues are hosting this particular hearing--
    Mrs. Spartz. Thank you. My time has expired, but yeah, 
yeah, I appreciate, my time has expired. I appreciate. I hope 
we have constructive conversations. Because we have a 
separation of power, and it's important for us to hold our 
institutions strong and not politicize the Courts.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Cicilline.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for convening this 
group of experts for today's hearing to discuss the ongoing 
crisis in our country.
    Abortion is healthcare, plain and simple. A person's 
decision on whether to become a parent is one of the most 
important that they can make in their life. A woman's decision 
on whether or not to have an abortion should be hers alone, 
period.
    Across America every day, this fundamental right to 
healthcare is being dismantled by politicians, usually men, 
pushing false narratives to control women's bodies. Their 
ultimate goal is a national ban on abortion in America.
    The world they're pushing for is deeply terrifying, a world 
without any abortion even for rape or incest, a world where 
women are criminalized not only for getting an abortion, but 
potentially for miscarriage or IVF treatment. A world where 
healthcare providers are hunted down and arrested and the 
vigilantes that hunt them are rewarded.
    It's incredible to me this fundamental constitutional 
right, enshrined more than 50 years ago, is again up for 
debate. It's unbelievable that we're even having this debate 
after we've seen the disastrous effects when women lose access 
to abortion care.
    So, thank you to our Witnesses for coming forth today to 
explain why access to abortion services is so vital, something 
you shouldn't have to do, but apparently still needs to be 
done.
    With that, I'd like to move on to a couple of questions. 
First, Professor Goodwin, can you discuss when one considers 
that miscarriage happens in 10-15 percent of known pregnancies, 
can you discuss that if States criminalize abortions, whether 
you have concerns that people may be investigated or prosecuted 
for miscarriages?
    Maybe speak more broadly about the dangers that exist from 
criminalizing pregnancy across America and how the Courts have 
begun to do that.
    Ms. Goodwin. Thank you very much for that question. This is 
urgently important. We saw aspects of this in the late 1980s 
and 1990s. Black women and Brown women were euphemistically the 
canaries in the coal mine in cases in Mississippi, such as the 
case of Rennie Gibbs, a 16-year-old who was charged with 
depraved murder, a Black 16-year-old, because she had a still 
birth.
    The case of Regina McKnight, the first woman in this 
country to be charged with murder for having a still birth, a 
young, African American woman in her early 20s. This will chill 
individuals wanting to even receive prenatal care.
    For individuals who want to, women who want to carry their 
pregnancies to term, but live in hostile environments, 
suffering communities where there are toxins that might make 
their pregnancies vulnerable, they will be people afraid to 
actually go to seek medical care because of the possibility of 
being criminally punished.
    It also creates pressures on doctors and nurses to spy and 
surveil and turn in information on their patients. Patients 
want to be able to get good quality healthcare, and they don't 
need being policed by their doctors and nurses, and we 
certainly don't need to seek criminally punishing them when 
they have miscarriages and still births.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, thank you very much.
    Dr. Robinson, you were being asked some pretty wild 
theoretical questions earlier about abortions being committed 
as the baby is halfway out of the birth canal, which of course 
is not how abortion happens in this country. It's not a thing. 
It's good television, it's just not true.
    Your time was cut short. Can you please give us a more 
accurate picture of when abortions typically happen during a 
pregnancy. Do you they happen--what percentage happen in the 
first 12 weeks? Then, finally, can you explain some of the 
scenarios that may lead a woman to seek an abortion later in 
the pregnancy.
    Dr. Robinson. Yes, thank you for the question. The majority 
of abortions take place in the first trimester, early in the 
pregnancy. It is very few pregnancies that require or may need 
an abortion later in the pregnancy.
    It's important for us to keep in mind that we have to 
consider viability being more than gestational age.
    So, sometimes pregnancies that have progressed later, but 
are later determined to have a lethal anomaly, they may--those 
are the ones in that rare instance where a pregnant person may 
opt to terminate that pregnancy as opposed to continuing it 
until she goes into labor or into--or to term in those instance 
where it may not be viable outside of the womb, despite the 
gestation age, and continue to carry the pregnancy.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I'm going to try to be the first 
person who gets the correct pronunciation, Arrambide. During 
the process that you described to us in your testimony, which 
was really important and moving, did you feel that your 
judgment was trusted?
    What should we learn from your experience about the 
importance of trusting women and individuals who seek abortion 
care in terms of being in the best position to make those 
judgments?
    Ms. Arrambide. Thank you. I believe I was trusted to make 
that decision because there weren't as many onerous 
restrictions put upon my access to care at the time. I think 
people are not trusted now, and that's what's happening as a 
result of all these restrictions being in place.
    I want to address my response to Mr. Johnson's question. I 
trust people to make decisions about their body. Just because 
he asked the question over and over again implying medical 
inaccuracies about the way abortion works, that doesn't change 
my answer. I trust people implicitly to make decisions about 
their body.
    In regard to later abortion, like Dr. Robinson referenced, 
that can be determined in consultation with their doctor, and 
not a Congressman. Thank you.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. Ms. 
Fischbach.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I absolutely welcome the opportunity to speak about the 
humanity of the unborn child and the science that proves it. 
The unborn baby has a heartbeat, a separate DNA, its own blood 
type, fingerprints, arms, legs, hands, and toes. Ultrasound 
technology continues to advance and provides us with a window 
into the world of the unborn.
    This hearing is not about the unborn child. This hearing 
appears to have been called to exert improper influence over 
the Supreme Court on an unfinished, leaked opinion draft.
    The title of the hearing is ``Revoking Your Rights, The 
Ongoing Crisis in Abortion Care Access.'' The supposed right to 
abortion is not found anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
    It was created by raw judicial power when the Supreme Court 
usurped the power of the elected officials at the State and 
Federal level to--and created a right that did not exist.
    We are a nation of laws. Rule of law only works when we 
follow the actual text of both the Constitution and the laws 
made by elected officials, not when the Courts create laws out 
of thin air.
    If someone thinks there is a law needed, then they use the 
political process and allow elected officials, who represent 
the voices of the people that elected them, to determine what 
should be in law. This is how the rule of law works.
    Unfortunately, the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court 
abruptly ended the political process. They created a right that 
did not exist, and they ended the ability of elected officials 
to make the decision. Roe was bad jurisprudence and should be 
overturned. Power to legislate on abortion should go back to 
elected officials.
    I was glad to hear the Chair denounce the leak. Too many 
Democrats have been silent on the leak, despite lecturing us in 
this Committee and elsewhere about institutional norms and the 
importance of following regular order.
    The leak was a break of institutional norms, trust, and 
confidentiality. The Democrats did not immediately denounce 
that leak, and most still have not done so shows that their 
words are hollow. They are for institutional norms only when it 
suits them.
    Take this hearing, for example. As Ms. Foster so rightly 
put it in her written testimony, by holding this hearing before 
the Dobbs decision comes out, this Committee risks the 
appearance of exerting improper influence over our judiciary by 
critiquing an unfinished draft the public was not meant to see. 
Thank you for that.
    Institutional norms and regular order would mean that we 
should not be having this hearing at all. The majority is 
clearly hoping to pressure the Supreme Court to influence their 
decision.
    If you care about the rule of law and institutional norms, 
stop attacking the Supreme Court, denounce the leak as the 
despicable Act that it is, denounce the bullying of Supreme 
Court justices at their homes and in public, stop--support the 
overturning of Roe v. Wade so that elected officials can once 
again make our laws instead of the Courts.
    With that, Ms. Foster, I just wanted to ask you if there 
was anything with the questions and the answers you've been 
hearing, is there anything that you would like to add to the 
discussion?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely. I would point out that no one on 
the other side of the aisle has seemed to say a word about 
increasing resources for pregnant and parenting women, for 
getting women out of bad situations.
    I think every abortion story, there's a common thread 
there, and that's every woman who's had an abortion has been 
let down in some way, myself included.
    We were given a one-size-fits-all solution. We weren't 
given individualized care. We weren't given resources and 
support and life-affirming options. We were pushed toward 
abortion.
    That's why I appreciate what you and your colleagues are 
doing here and I'm just so grateful that you're here standing 
for the human rights of all human beings.
    Ms. Fischbach. Well, and thank you for being here, too, Ms. 
Foster. I just did want to add in my last few seconds, for 50 
years, pro-lifers have been standing with the mothers and their 
children.
    You talk about pregnancy centers where pro-lifers wrap 
their arms around those women and those babies before and after 
birth. So, for many years we have been doing that, and we hope 
to continue to do that, but after Roe v. Wade. So, thank you 
very much for being here.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Jeffries.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for convening 
this incredibly important hearing. I thank the Witnesses for 
your presence, and I want to direct my questions to Ms. 
Goodwin.
    I thank you for your virtual presence here, as well as for 
your legal expertise.
    This seems to me to be a conflict between those of us who 
want to make sure that a woman has the freedom to make her own 
healthcare decisions and those who want to criminalize 
healthcare, jam the women of this country with government-
mandated pregnancies, even in the case of rape or incest.
    Now, this draft opinion by Justice Alito regarding Dobbs v. 
Jackson Women's Health Organization calls for the removal of a 
constitutional right for more than 100 million American women, 
I believe 167 million to be exact.
    Ms. Goodwin, if Justice Alito's draft becomes the final 
majority opinion of the Court, how many years of judicial 
precedent would the Supreme Court be overturning?
    Ms. Goodwin. Well, if we're talking about Roe v. Wade 
specifically, it would be 49 years of Supreme Court 
jurisprudence. I would even suggest that we look back to 
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, where the United States Supreme 
Court made clear that reproductive freedom and autonomy was a 
human right in the United States.
    So, we actually miss the mark by just looking to Roe v. 
Wade. If we actually look for a case that involves a man who 
was being denied reproductive autonomy in 1942, the Supreme 
Court said that was unconstitutional.
    Mr. Jeffries. This is an extraordinary step that the Court 
may take, a runaway, right-wing, radical majority of the 
Supreme Court. To justify his opinion in the draft, Justice 
Alito quotes and refers to Sir Matthew Hale, I believe 
approximately 98 times. Is that correct?
    Ms. Goodwin. A number of times. I can't express that's 
exactly the number of times that he does.
    It is alarming nonetheless that he does, considering that 
Sir Matthew Hale was one who wrote about coverture, meaning 
that women had no independent identity apart from their 
husband, and that also meant that women could legally beaten by 
their husbands and legally raped by their husbands too.
    Mr. Jeffries. Trust me, trust me, Ms. Goodwin, we're going 
to get there. Now, Justice Alito described Sir Matthew Hale as 
a great and eminent legal authority, is that correct?
    Ms. Goodwin. That is correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. A great and eminent legal authority.
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 
a piece in the Washington Post on Roe. Alito cites a judge who 
treated women as witches and property.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                      MR. JEFFRIES FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Jeffries. Now, Sir Hale, an English judge from the mid-
1600s, actually sentenced two women to death who he deemed as 
witches, is that correct?
    Ms. Goodwin. That may very well be correct. I would say 
that he cites several other legal scholars as well who 
supported those ideas and views.
    Mr. Jeffries. This so-called legal scholar, Sir Hale, is 
the one who actually was the foundation for the most frequently 
cited defense of the infamous marital rape exception. Is that 
true?
    Ms. Goodwin. That's correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. Sir Hale once wrote that, ``The husband 
cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful 
wife for their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife 
hath given of herself in this kind unto her husband which she 
can retract.'' So essentially--
    Ms. Goodwin. That's right.
    Mr. Jeffries. --Justice Hale or Sir Hale viewed women as 
property that could be violently raped and abused without 
consequence. Is that true?
    Ms. Goodwin. That is true.
    Mr. Jeffries. So, most of the legal basis for Justice 
Alito's draft opinion and his doctrine stems from a 
misogynistic so-called scholar from the 17th century who died 
before a single word of the Constitution was written. Is that 
true?
    Ms. Goodwin. That is correct. He was not from the United 
States.
    Mr. Jeffries. The notion that these are individuals who 
want to speak about original intent and would discard 49 years 
of settled precedent here is outrageous. It's problematic. That 
is what will undermine the confidence of the American people in 
our judiciary. We're going to continue to stand for the freedom 
of a woman to make her own healthcare decisions. Thank you for 
your testimony.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chair. On one hand, the focus of 
this hearing seems to be on the draft opinion as we just heard 
from the last gentleman and from several of the questioners on 
the other side. The timing of this hearing makes it suspect in 
and of itself, the line of questioning.
    What it seems to be is putting--or attempting to intimidate 
the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and actually, probably 
in some ways is going to encourage the continued advocacy in 
front judges' homes. As DHS says, it's going to anticipate 
increased violence. In a way, that whole aspect of this is 
merely distraction because this isn't about that necessarily 
and it isn't about saving a mom's life. That arises in less 
than one-tenth of one percent of all pregnancies related to 
abortion.
    Advances in medical technology have developed so far that 
it's almost always possible to save the lives of both mom and 
baby. This isn't about pregnant men or how you define women. 
This isn't about personal autonomy because science has 
progressed so far to tell us about the individuality of that 
baby, the development, what the baby looks like, how it grows, 
whether it feels pain, recognizes sounds and voices, et cetera.
    No, what this is really about is merely 65 million little 
persons who've been aborted, killed since the Roe v. Wade 
decision. This is about killing babies. That's what this 
hearing is about today.
    Comedian Laurie Kilmartin appeared on MSNBC to fantasize 
about having sex with the person who leaked the Supreme Court's 
draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson, then joyfully aborting the 
baby out of spite if it turned out the leaker was a 
conservative. This is about an Arizona State Senator, a 
Democrat State Senator arguing that his own foster children 
should've been aborted. This is about Pennsylvania's Lieutenant 
Governor John Fetterman saying abortion without any limit is 
sacred.
    This is about a change in the cultural attitude about 
abortions. This marks a significant shift, a significant shift 
in what we have discussed over time about abortion where even 
Hilary Rodham Clinton said in 2008 that abortion should be 
safe, legal, and rare. That isn't the debate anymore from the 
left.
    This is about shouting that taking a life--this is from 
Michael Knowles I'm quoting here. This is about shouting that 
taking a life of the innocent in a womb is not a big deal. 
Quote, ``the late great Norm Macdonald once mocked a friend's 
suggestion at the time a common refrain that the worst aspect 
of disgraced comedian Bill Cosby's sexual crimes was,'' quote, 
``the hypocrisy.'' ``No,'' Norm responded. ``I actually think 
it was the raping. It's my feeling most rapists are 
hypocrites.''
    A man willing to commit enormous sins will more easily 
commit lesser sins. One struggles to imagine a more egregious 
sin than killing an innocent little baby. This is about the 
left telling pro-life Americans they should shut up when pro-
life advocates protest Roe v. Wade and pray for it to be 
overturned but advocating for groups to violate Federal law and 
protest at Supreme Court justices' homes to intimidate them.
    When some have failed to condemn violence like the arson at 
a crisis pregnancy center in Wisconsin or Oregon. Attacking 
churches and houses of worship who preach the sanctity of life. 
Remaining silent when the Virginia Attorney General who warns 
pro-abortion protestors that they must refrain from harassing 
worshipers gets his window shot at. When the Secretary of the 
Treasury testifies that abortion is actually good for the 
economy apparently forgetting the economy of the life of the 
unborn in the womb child. The left will stop at nothing to 
advance this radical agenda.
    Last week during our markup, one of our colleagues said, 
nothing will be enough to protect our democracy and our 
fundamental right short of sending this far right majority on 
the Court to its rightful place in the minority and into the 
dustbin of history by expanding the Supreme Court. We have 
heard--let's just ask Ms. Foster. Is abortion an Act of love?
    Ms. Foster. Never.
    Mr. Biggs. Are pro-life policies racist?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Biggs. The reason I ask that is at a House Oversight 
Committee hearing, ``A State of Crisis: Examining the Urgent 
Need to Protect and Expand Abortion Rights,'' one of the 
Witnesses there, who also testified previously in this 
Committee, said abortion is a blessing, abortion is love, 
abortion is freedom. Is it any of those things, Ms. Foster?
    Ms. Foster. It is not. How many times you repeat a lie does 
not make it true.
    Mr. Biggs. So, we had a Member of the House testify that 
abortion restrictions are part of the intertwining systems of 
oppression that deny Black, Indigenous, and people of color 
their constitutional rights. Is that accurate, Ms. Foster?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely not. Pro-life policies are meant to 
protect all human beings.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. My time is up. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Swalwell.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chair. We are talking about a 
decision that is so personal and one that families and 
individuals with their families and their friends make 
oftentimes at the kitchen table. It's one of those few 
decisions in your life that will require you to consult with 
your friends and your family.
    It's like deciding what career you're going to pursue, 
whether you want to have a family, who you're going to marry. 
It's a decision for our family that we don't want the 
government to be a part of at all. For my wife, the decision to 
have three children was her decision, a decision that she made 
in consultation with her husband, her friends, and her family.
    For every woman in America who has to make this decision, 
it's a decision that they have the right to make with their 
friends, their family, the individuals they choose to consult. 
In no way should these guys over here be a part of her 
decision. These guys have no right to be at that kitchen table 
as she makes that very personal decision about whether she 
wants to be a parent or not.
    That's what they're asking for. They want to be at the 
kitchen table. They want to tell her whether she should or 
should not be able to be a parent.
    They don't want to be at the kitchen table for anything 
else after the baby is born. They don't want to be there at 
all. They don't want to be there to help her finance that 
family and walk away from every piece of legislation that we 
have that would help mothers feed their kids.
    They don't want to be there to help the mother educate 
their children. They don't want to be there to help her get a 
childcare tax credit or child tax credit that could be 
permanent. They don't want to be there to fund the education 
and good schools in the neighborhood.
    They certainly don't want to be there to take the most 
dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people 
that could kill that kid at their elementary school. They don't 
want to be there to make college more affordable. They just 
want to be there to tell her she has to have a government 
mandated pregnancy. If she doesn't do it, she's a criminal. 
That's what they want to be there for.
    Ms. Goodwin, if this leaked opinion is finalized, will this 
open the floodgates to allow States to criminalize a woman's 
personal healthcare decisions?
    Ms. Goodwin. Yes, it will. We've already seen signs of that 
coming from the State legislatures that has been the most 
active in drafting various kinds of abortion bans even before 
now.
    Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Goodwin, would this opinion invite States 
to pass even more restrictive laws that would provide more 
rights to a rapist than to his victim?
    Ms. Goodwin. That's right. We've already seen that where 
States have wanted to empower and embolden rapists and even 
their family Members to be able to sue a woman who has been 
sexually assaulted and raped.
    Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Goodwin, from this opinion, does it also 
flow that you could ban contraception?
    Ms. Goodwin. Absolutely. From this decision, which 
criticizes justices who supported Roe v. Wade, those are the 
same justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. So, this particular 
draft opinion, if made a reality in June, it would mean 
potentially that even contraception could be something that 
could be outlawed or that's safe to seek to outlaw that and 
that this is a Court that might allow that.
    Mr. Swalwell. Chair, I thank you again for holding this 
hearing. These guys do not belong at the kitchen table of any 
woman in American as she makes this very personal decision. We 
know that if they force this decision on somebody, they're not 
going to be there for anything else and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Gentleman yields back. At this time, the 
Committee will stand in recess for five minutes. The Committee 
stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Nadler. The Committee will come to order. Mr. 
McClintock.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Chair, there are really two 
issues that are before us. One is the judicial issue over the 
role of the Court in our constitutional framework which we 
should be defending and the policy question of abortion which 
we should be debating.
    I think it's alright to vigorously debate or protest a 
Supreme Court decision. I think it's alright to change laws or 
amend the Constitution in response to a Supreme Court decision. 
It is not alright to intimidate the justices during their 
deliberations.
    The judiciary is supposed to be focused on the law and the 
Constitution. It's the one branch of government that's 
insulated from politics and political pressures for that very 
reason. Justice is often depicted as blindfolded because it's 
supposed to take no note of the politics or personalities 
before them or their favoritism or bias that's attached to 
them.
    One exception in that depiction, by the way, can be found 
in our old Supreme Court chamber in the Capitol. Justice is not 
blindfolded when she's looking to the Constitution. The Supreme 
Court fulfills this function by an extensive process of 
exchanging arguments and testing various reasons and opinions 
among the nine justices in the sanctity and security of knowing 
that as they hone and form and modify and perfect their 
positions, that process will remain confidential so they can 
feel free to alter their opinions as facts and reason dictates.
    This process is essential to the role of the Court. The 
unprecedented breach of that confidentiality by the leaking of 
a draft opinion is catastrophic to that process. For the Chair 
of the House Judiciary Committee to minimize this development 
is a distraction I personally find appalling and alarming.
    It is, I'm afraid, a very dangerous milestone in the left's 
attacks on our Constitution and its fundamental institutions. 
There's no blanking the fact that the Supreme Court is under 
sustained attack by the left. They refuse to protect the 
deliberations of the Court from political pressure and 
influence.
    Indeed, they've launched a concerted effort to apply 
political pressure by threats such as those as we heard from 
Senator Schumer recently, by intimidation such as assembling 
mobs in front of justices' homes and refusing to prosecute 
those crimes under our law, and by using the legislative branch 
to attack a draft opinion while it's being considered by the 
Court along with explicit threats to pack the Court if they 
don't get their way. That is the judicial crisis that we face. 
The Judiciary Committee not only is not standing in defense of 
our judiciary. It's leading the attacks.
    Conservatives for 50 years have abhorred the Roe decision. 
We never employed such tactics as we see from the left today. 
Now, if the Dobbs draft becomes the decision of the Court, the 
decision over abortion becomes a policy matter again that 
rightly belongs to the people through their elected 
representatives here in this branch or more precisely the 
legislative branches of the 50 States.
    This debate is appropriate in this body before this 
Committee. By the way, that's all the Dobbs decision says. I 
agree with the Chair that the decision to become a parent is a 
uniquely personal one which the government has no right to 
intrude upon. The fine point of the question is, when does one 
become a parent? That's really the center of this debate.
    Ms. Arrambide, you said that--and it really struck home. 
You said you trust people to decide what to do with their own 
bodies. Is that an accurate depiction of what you said?
    Ms. Arrambide. Yes.
    Mr. McClintock. I'd go a step further. I'd say that nobody 
has a right to tell you what to do with your own body. Would 
you agree?
    Ms. Arrambide. Yes.
    Mr. McClintock. Okay. Well, then we have the perfect 
agreement on that. Before we go on, I also have to ask the 
question, if this is solely about your body, does this process 
stop your heart from beating? Does it suck your brains out of 
your skull? Does it tear your limbs from your body?
    If you can't answer that question, then we have to 
entertain the possibility that maybe we're talking about 
another human being as well who has rights that have to be 
balanced through the laws that need to be talked about in 
forums like this, forums that represent all the people which is 
precisely where the Dobbs draft would place that decision. Ms. 
Foster, as a society, we've got a clear consensus that if a 
human being has a brain wave and a heartbeat, they have an 
indisputable right to life. They cannot be legally harmed.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. McClintock. Let me just ask, is that a standard we 
should be--that is a standard we apply to end of life. Is that 
also a standard we should apply to the beginning of life?
    Ms. Foster. It absolutely is, yes.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. 
Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Abe Lincoln once wrote a 
beautiful passage in which he compared the Constitution and the 
Declaration. He said, ``the Constitution is like a silver 
picture framing the apple of gold.'' The apple of gold he said 
is liberty, liberty for each and every person in the country. 
The silver frame exists to protect the apple, he said. The 
Constitution exists to protect freedom. The apple does not 
exist to protect the frame.
    Well, today both democracy and freedom are under siege in 
our country. There are right wing extremists and fanatics who 
want to destroy both the silver frame of our constitutional 
democracy, and they came here to show us that they mean 
business on January the 6th of last year, and also the golden 
apple of personal freedom to make our own decisions about the 
most intimate and personal decisions that we could make. They 
have brought mob violence to the Congress of the United States, 
threatening to hang the Vice President to overthrow a 
democratic election.
    Now, they are about to do violence to the Constitution and 
the doctrine of a right to privacy, a freedom that tens of 
millions of Americans and women have considered central to 
their ability to lead their lives and to conduct their business 
as citizens of the country. Well, this is an illuminating 
hearing, Mr. Chair. The Republicans' own Witness, the Witness 
they called, is candidly and openly calling for a nationwide 
ban on all abortions with no exceptions for rape or incest.
    If I've got that wrong, I would invite Ms. Foster to 
correct me. Do I have it wrong, yes or no?
    Ms. Foster. If we added rape and incest exceptions, would 
you vote for it?
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. I reclaim my time, of course. This is a 
position for government compelled childbirth in all cases so 
extreme that it excludes the vast majority of Americans of all 
political persuasions. Talk, for example, to our Republican 
colleague, Nancy Mace, who has written movingly of her own rape 
at age 16. She refused to stand down before anti-choice 
extremists in South Carolina who wanted to criminalize abortion 
as this Witness does in every single case, in all the cases.
    The MAGA party wants to turn what is today and what has 
been for 50 years a constitutional right into a Federal crime. 
They want to do it before the 4th of July. I want America to 
reflect on what's going on here.
    My wife, Sarah, and I have been parents for 30 years. 
There's nothing I'm prouder of than raising three human beings 
of great decency and character. I've only been in public office 
for 15 years, half of that time.
    I venture to say I've come to known politicians pretty 
well. I hope it offends none of my colleagues here. I must say 
I trust my 29-year-old and 25-year-old daughters infinitely 
more to make the personal life planning decisions about when, 
where, and how to start their families and all the related 
attendant personal healthcare decisions about their bodies and 
their lives than I would ever trust the class of politicians to 
make those decisions for them.
    That's what this is about. I've served with great public 
officials from both parties, people like John Lewis, people 
like Liz Cheney, people like Nancy Pelosi. I would not trust 
even the best politicians to make those judgments for my 
daughters, much less would I trust the politicians who are 
fighting to criminalize abortion in all cases with no 
exceptions even for violent rape or incest across all of 
America.
    Why would we put this decision in the hands of those 
people? Abraham Lincoln was right about something else. He 
said, ``government cannot endure permanently half slave and 
half free.''
    Ultimately, I am sure that Abe Lincoln is as right about 
the 21st century as he was about the 19th century. We are not 
going to be able to endure half free and half controlled by the 
government. I tremble for my country when I contemplate what 
this five-justice majority is about to do to our country. I 
yield back to you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There have been a number 
of statements made by the other side this morning and now this 
afternoon that I just don't think are accurate. One was the 
Court and Republicans want to go after other rights.
    I just want to read from the draft decision, page 62. 
Majority rights and the draft opinion,

         . . . and to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or 
        not mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns 
        the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. 
        Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on 
        precedence that do not concern abortion.

    They've said that there's no question what Republicans 
want. They want a Federal law, that Republicans are radical. Is 
respecting the sanctity of life, Ms. Foster, is understanding 
that all life is precious, that we are endowed with that life 
by our creator, the special right to life we have mentioned in 
the document that started this whole thing we call America, is 
there anything real radical about that?
    Ms. Foster. Not at all.
    Mr. Jordan. Life is precious, isn't it?
    Ms. Foster. Life is the most precious thing. Without life, 
we can't exercise any other right.
    Mr. Jordan. Here's what the Court said. The Court said 
we're not even going to make an ultimate decision. We're just 
going to leave it to the respective States. The State in 
question in the decision that was in front of the Court that 
they wrote about in the draft opinion, State of Mississippi, 
they said this. They said 15 weeks.
    They said at five weeks, an unborn child's heart begins 
beating. At eight weeks, the child begins to move in the womb. 
At 10 weeks, vital organs begin to function. At 11 weeks, the 
diaphragm is developing. At 12 weeks, the child has taken on 
human form in all relevant respects.
    That all happens even before the deadline they set. We 
could disagree with that, but that's the case in front of the 
Court. They're saying, we're going to let States make this 
decision.
    The State of Mississippi, through their elected officials, 
passed a law that said that. They now say that's radical. What 
is radical in my mind is the position they take.
    We just asked a question of one of our colleagues who 
wouldn't answer the question. What is radical is the position 
they take because they say, no limits. Is that right, Ms. 
Foster?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely accurate. You look at New York's 
Reproductive Health Act. You look at the Women's Health 
Protection Act. They go so far beyond codifying Roe, so to 
speak, they expand Roe. They do so much--
    Mr. Jordan. I was thinking about what they passed last week 
or what they tried to pass last week in the United States 
Senate, right? You want to talk about radical. Tell the Members 
of this Committee and the American people what they tried to 
pass in the Senate last week.
    Ms. Foster. The Women's Health Protection Act would wipe 
out more than 500 protective laws. It would invalidate informed 
consent provisions, waiting periods, parental notification, 
much less consent. Anything that you--
    Mr. Jordan. Go back to that one. So, a minor is going to 
have this surgery done, this procedure done. Some legislatures 
elected by the people at respective States say, you know what? 
We think it may make some sense to tell their mom and dad that 
they know what's going on. The bill that the Senate tried to 
pass last week got rid of that?
    Ms. Foster. My teenager couldn't get an aspirin in school 
without parental permission and consent but apparently can go 
get an abortion without even notification under the Women's 
Health Protection Act.
    Mr. Jordan. That sounds pretty radical. That would include 
all the way. I don't even like to talk about this because it 
seems just so wrong. All the way up until just moments before 
that little child is about to be born, is that right, Ms. 
Foster?
    Ms. Foster. On their birthday.
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah. Frankly, it's even worse because we had a 
former Democrat governor in a State not too far from here who 
said it shouldn't stop there. Shouldn't stop there. Governor 
Northam said actually, no, no, it's not even up to that point 
which is just unbelievable. It's even past that when someone, 
the strong, could end the life of the weak. Is that right?
    Ms. Foster. He did. He was on public radio and said that 
after the child was born, then the child would be kept 
comfortable while a debate ensued about whether or not the 
child would be given any kind of medical care.
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah. As Mr. McClintock pointed out, that child 
certainly would have a beating heart, certainly have a 
functioning brain, everything else. We had a democratic 
governor in a State not too far from here who said what he--
unbelievable. That's the radical--that's the position that the 
American people say, wait a minute. We don't want to go there. 
We don't want that.
    We would much prefer, I believe, to let the legislatures in 
the respective States put something together that makes sense 
for their State. I know where you and I are. We think all life 
is precious and should be protected.
    That's not what Mississippi said. They don't want to let 
that happen because they want the radical bill that they tried 
to pass in the United States Senate last week that would allow 
all kinds of things happen that the American people know 
instinctively is wrong. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Gentleman yields back. Ms. Jayapal.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In 2019, I was compelled 
to share my abortion story as States pursued abortion ban 
legislation. You want to know what's radical? A radical and 
politicized Supreme Court majority now stands poised to take 
away the basic freedom that women and pregnant people must have 
to make choices about our own bodies and instead to have the 
government force pregnancy.
    Here's the thing that really galls me. The hypocrisy of an 
anti-freedom, anti-abortion movement that claims to support 
life and freedom. Our Republican Witness and our Republican 
colleagues today spoke about the so-called violence of abortion 
when they are the very people who have opposed funding for 
contraception to prevent pregnancy or oppose the child tax 
credit which clearly reduced hunger or even advocated to 
separate thousands of immigrant kids from their parents or 
withhold baby formula for babies, babies at the border.
    In fact, States with the most draconian abortion 
restrictions also have the highest maternal mortality rates. 
That's the real violence here. That's the hypocrisy I want to 
examine.
    So, Dr. Robinson, maternal and infant mortality is a raging 
epidemic. Black women and children are especially at risk. What 
is the anti-abortion, anti-freedom advocates doing to protect 
the lives of Black mothers and infants? I have a number of 
questions. So, if you could keep your answers short.
    Dr. Robinson. Yes, they're not doing anything to protect 
the lives of mothers and infants. I appreciate you asking the 
question. The things that our patients need right now is 
effective contraception.
    We need access to healthcare before you become pregnant. We 
need access to care beyond 60 days postpartum. We need to be 
able to send our children to childcare if we do choose to 
parent. We need access to effective abortion and abortion in 
your own community if you choose not to be a parent.
    Ms. Jayapal. At every turn, this anti-freedom movement as 
you said that is opposing abortion and reproductive health 
access are the same people who don't want to provide healthcare 
to people and want to tear down the Affordable Care Act or 
Medicaid. Ms. Arrambide, how much will abortion bans strain our 
already overburdened healthcare system and harm the health of 
pregnant people and children of color?
    Ms. Arrambide. Thank you for your question. I mean, we're 
already seeing what it looks like for about 50,000 Texans to go 
into other States trying to access the care they need. When we 
see that 26 other States are going to ban abortion if this 
draft opinion goes into effect, it's going to be exponential.
    People will be forced to carry their pregnancies longer. 
That's only if they can access the care, if they can travel, if 
they can find childcare, if they can take off work to access 
the care they need, if they can afford to pay for their 
procedure. Then the regular, like, health system, especially in 
Texas, we've already seen how overrun it is.
    We're a State that has cut family planning, cut access to 
prenatal care. We don't pay attention to the high maternal 
mortality rates. In addition to that, we have not expanded 
Medicare. Like, we don't take care of the people that are in 
our communities now. We've seen the devastating effects of 
these types of bans, in Texas especially.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much for the work you do. Even 
though the data is clear that the abortion rate has fallen 
thanks to better contraceptive use and fewer unintended 
pregnancies, Ms. Glenn Foster's organization has written 
articles and amicus briefs in opposition to a wide array of 
reproductive healthcare services, including intrauterine 
devices, Plan B, in vitro fertilization. So, they're clearly 
not interested in preventing unintended pregnancies.
    In fact, Justice Alito in his draft decision also does note 
that the Supreme Court established many other modern rights 
based on the same reasoning as abortion rights and specifically 
includes precedence around contraception and by the way, other 
things like interracial or same sex marriage. Professor 
Goodwin, does this so-called pro-life movement solely focused 
on revoking abortion rights? Or are they also working to revoke 
other rights as well?
    Ms. Goodwin. Other rights. Other rights within the 
reproductive health space and rights that are associated with 
the right to birth. So that when Justice Alito in this draft 
opinion says, ``turn to your States and go vote,'' how does one 
do that effectively when this Supreme Court has dismantled 
parts of the Voting Rights Act and where it has become very 
difficult for poor people and people of color to be able to 
vote in these States.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, in response to Mr. Jordan, my colleague 
across the aisle's question about the fact that the Supreme 
Court is not aiming to take away other rights, in that same 
draft decision, didn't Justice Alito make reference to several 
other rights that follow essentially the same logic as this 
decision?
    Ms. Goodwin. That's right.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. In the wake of this opinion, it is 
clear that the anti-abortion movement is not pro-life. They are 
anti-freedom, and they support abortion bans that would mandate 
government mandated pregnancy and disproportionately harm 
pregnant people and children of color. It's on us to ensure 
that these rights remain. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Scanlon. [Presiding.] The gentlewoman's time has 
expired.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Steube, for five minutes.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Madam Chair. More than 63 million 
unborn children have been murdered by abortion in the United 
States since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Between 1975 and 
2012, it was more than a million a year.
    That equates to more than 2,700 children a day whose life 
was taken during that period. In my State of Florida, it's 
approximately 70,000 a year. Now, let me put those numbers in 
perspective for you.
    Sixty-three million is more than the number of deaths in 
the Holocaust, Stalin's forced famine, the Cambodian genocide, 
and the Armenian genocide combined. Twenty-seven hundred per 
day is more than the death toll at Pearl Harbor and just shy of 
September 11th. That happens every single day in this country.
    The 70,000 per year in Florida is more than the combined 
populations of the cities of Punta Gorda, Venice, Sebring, and 
Arcadia that are in my district every single year in Florida 
alone. Sixty-three million unborn babies since Roe v. Wade, 
many of them would be adults now. They would be contributing to 
our communities, to our economy, and making our world a better 
place.
    They never had a chance because a court created a right 
where none existed in the law. At some point in the 20th 
century, liberals developed a bizarre obsession with a sinister 
misuse of medical science. They ignored the text of the 
Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, the will of 
the electorate, and nearly two centuries of Supreme Court 
precedent to mandate that each State legalize abortion in an 
infamous decision that even its ideological supporters have a 
hard time defending on legal grounds.
    Roe v. Wade took discretion away from elected officials and 
required every State in the union to allow the killing of the 
unborn. Congress has never passed a bill legalizing the killing 
of unborn children in our country. Recent attempts in this 
Congress to do so have, thankfully, been stopped by a member of 
their own party.
    The Supreme Court in Roe inventing a right to abort despite 
no law allowing it and the Court ignored that such a right had 
never been recognized in the 184-year history of the Court. 
Today we may stand on the verge of righting that wrong. Instead 
of accepting this fact and turning their attention to the 
border crisis, inflation, gas prices, or the crime epidemic, 
Democrats are doubling down on their obsession with killing the 
unborn.
    For instance, in legislation this Congress, which has been 
alluded to here lately, Democrats have sought to legalize 
abortion up to the point of birth. Some Democrats have famously 
now explained how they would euthanize children outside the 
womb shortly after they are born and then explained the 
procedure that they would take to accomplish it. Democrats 
biggest focus right now is making sure that no jurisdiction in 
America can do anything to stop the killing of a nine-month 
baby in the womb.
    Their infatuation with and admiration for abortion is one 
of the most shameful occurrences in American political history. 
You want to talk about genocide. Look no further than United 
States where over 63 million and counting children have been 
killed in the name of choice.
    Of course, Democrats can't let pure hypocrisy get in the 
way of their accomplished stated mission. Even the Chair 
couldn't help himself in bringing the issues up in his opening 
statement. There's been another Member that's alluded to it.
    The same people who called January 6th protestors domestic 
terrorists and insurrectionists are now cheering on protestors 
violating Federal laws. They attempt to intimidate the Supreme 
Court justices at their homes. Of course, Biden's weaponized 
and politicized Department of Justice, who would rather 
investigate parents protesting at school boards turned a blind 
eye to clear violations of Federal law that is happening right 
now at the justices' homes.
    I'm sure if we had Trump supporters at the homes of liberal 
judges, it would be the next existential threat to democracy. 
FBI swat teams with what Democrats now call weapons of mass 
destruction would be raiding their homes at night, swiftly 
locking them up into solitary confinement with no bail while 
they awaited trial for over a year, full stop. So, Ms. Foster, 
in my limited time I have left, can you speak further about the 
sale of child tissue, in other words, the sale of body parts of 
aborted children by Planned Parenthood and other abortionists?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely. Yeah, that is just another way that 
the abortion industry makes money. It's interesting. This 
hearing called by your colleagues on the other side, it's about 
grandstand-
ing, fear mongering, misinformation, falsehoods, and 
intimidation.
    What's true is that we are in favor of supporting life and 
protecting all human beings. We did that for pregnant and 
parenting human beings when we filed a brief in Young v. UPS. 
We do that for children in the womb.
    We shine a light on exactly what Planned Parenthood is 
doing with the bodies of these children that it aborts and 
other abortion industry players. All too frequently, they're 
selling these body parts for research, for examination. We have 
heard even that it's been exposed that they are often even 
burned, incinerated to power our streetlamps.
    That is simply inhumane. That is the core of the abortion 
industry, is treating people like things and stripping away the 
humanity of human beings that science has known have been human 
beings for many, many decades, long before Roe, that we saw 
even in the 1960s on the cover of Time.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time as expired. Thank you.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you 
to all our Witnesses for being here today. After sitting here 
listening to this for a while, it's difficult to know exactly 
where to start. I think I'll start here.
    I grew up in a rural part of Florida. My parents were poor, 
but they were good, decent, honest people who taught their 
seven children to be good, decent, and honest. My mother was in 
church every Sunday, so that meant I was in church every 
Sunday.
    My mother taught me to not just listen to a sermon. She 
taught me to try to be a sermon, to practice what I heard 
preached, to treat people with respect, and also leave them 
with their dignity. So, because of that, I made a decision a 
long time ago that I would dedicate my life to public service, 
that I wanted to protect people.
    I ultimately decided that the best way for me to do that 
was to become a police officer. Madam Chair, I can tell you as 
a police officer, I cannot tell you the number of times I may 
have disagreed with people's personal choices, beliefs, and 
decisions. I took an oath that I would protect them and their 
constitutional rights to those decisions and those beliefs.
    That's what sets us apart from every other nation, your 
family, life, religion, circumstances, belief, and bodies. It 
is what makes this the greatest nation on planet Earth. I swore 
as a police officer and so did we in this body that we would 
protect that.
    As a police detective, I have investigated sexual assault, 
rape, and incest. Imagine--and I'm speaking to all my 
colleagues, if you are willing--the trauma associated with 
these types of attacks and abuse, the darkness, hopelessness, 
humiliation, and the shame. Madam Chair, certainly it appears 
that these politicians have no shame.
    On the one hand, they shout government needs to get out of 
our business. They shout we need less government. When it comes 
to a woman's most intimate, private, personal decisions, a 
woman's freedom, and doggone it her right to privacy, certainly 
politicians want full, uninterrupted, unfiltered access to what 
a woman does with her body.
    There's been a lot of talk about the leaker. Well, perhaps 
the leaker is a conservative who just happens to believe that 
Roe is established settled law and is appalled at the plan to 
overturn it and simply sounded the alarm. Can't we just stop 
trying to shame and control America's daughters?
    Let's help them soar as we should to their full potential. 
I trust them. I ask every Member of this body to get out their 
personal business and trust them too.
    Professor Goodwin, I want to ask you, why do you think 
there is disagreement between State laws and reliable, 
consistent polling, the overwhelming majority of the American 
people believe that Roe should stay in place? There's some of 
my colleagues that say the hell with that. Why do you think 
that State laws are inconsistent with reliable polling showing 
broad support for the right to an abortion? Professor?
    Ms. Goodwin. Well, because there is an agenda to dismantle 
to the rule of law and our democracy as we know it, it's 
important to realize that Roe v. Wade was a seven to two 
opinion. Five of those justices were Republican appointed. 
Justice Blackmun was put on the Court by Richard Nixon. What we 
see today is antithetical to that history.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Professor. Madam Chair, I 
yield back.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Massie for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Madam Chair. This hearing and the 
context that's being offered or called and the title of it is 
just part of an ongoing effort of the radical left to influence 
the Supreme Court through intimidation. The decision should've 
never been leaked.
    Right now, what's happening here what the Democrats are 
doing is to try and amplify that leak to try--it's a last ditch 
effort to influence this decision. Ms. Foster, you mentioned in 
your opening statement something that I think needs to be 
explored more. I want to give you a chance to do that.
    You talked about euphemisms. You didn't really get a chance 
to discuss some of those euphemisms. I think I know what some 
of them are. Can you tell us what the euphemistic language is 
that the radical left uses to describe abortion and why they do 
that?
    Ms. Foster. Well, talking about the child in the womb, 
unless you're President Biden, they use terms like clump of 
tissue, clump of cells, things like that. They don't seem to 
recognize and admit that it is a child in the womb even when 
their own President does, even when all embryology textbooks 
do, even when the vast majority of the American people. Anyone 
who's seen an ultrasound can recognize that humanity.
    Mr. Massie. I mean, aren't we all just a clump of cells at 
the end of the day? I mean, that's what life is. We are cells 
that replicate and divide. That's what a baby is doing inside 
of the womb.
    That, I would say, is life, when cells multiply on their 
own without somebody causing that. The other euphemisms that 
they use to describe the baby in the womb are fetus, pregnancy 
tissue. This abortion will just quietly remove the pregnancy 
they might say.
    Ms. Foster. Products of conception.
    Mr. Massie. Products of conception, medical waste, I mean, 
you've already discussed that. They refer to unborn babies as 
medical waste once they've been aborted. I find it interesting 
the language they use to describe ending the life of an unborn 
baby, abortion care. Who's being taken care of there?
    Birth control, it's actually a consequence of the lack of 
birth control. Reproductive freedom. These are all euphemisms 
they use for describing the process of ending the life of an 
unborn baby. Abortion clinic; even the name of the leading 
abortion clinic is deceptive in itself.
    Planned Parenthood? It's the lack of planning. It's an 
emergency that's gone on or it's an unplanned thing that's 
happened. Now, they're trying to treat it like an emergency 
when it should be the birth of a baby. Those who would 
prematurely end the life of their baby are being called 
patients.
    My body, my choice. I remember when I was young and before 
I learned how babies came about, I thought when they said my 
body, my choice, they were talking about whatever was inside of 
the woman was part of their body. The baby is not the body of 
the woman that it's inside of. It's another life. It's not the 
body of the woman. So why do you think they use this language?
    Ms. Foster. Today's hearing has been replete with those 
euphemisms and misdirections that I referenced in the opening 
statement. Abortion is a scourge, plain and simple. It's a 
farce that abortion is presented as a solution to anyone's 
problems. It's a crime that corporate abortion interests and 
this kind of euphemism and misdirection hold so much sway over 
so many.
    We have to do better than this because our constitutional 
democracy is at stake. If abortion solved poverty or improved 
material conditions, wouldn't we have closed the gap in the 
last 50 years? Right now, inequality is greater than ever, and 
wage growth is more stagnant than ever. So, please, with the 
idea that abortion improves equality.
    Mr. Massie. I think they're using these words to deceive 
because if they actually described what they were doing, what 
an abortion causes, that it ends a life, far fewer people would 
choose that. So, I think they do it to deceive. I hold out hope 
that the reason they use this language is some of the people in 
the abortion industry still have a conscience, that they know 
that it's wrong.
    What they're doing is wrong. They come up with this 
language to maintain the cognitive dissonance that allows them 
to end a life while at the same time knowing that ending a life 
is morally and ethically wrong. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes myself for 
five minutes. I want to thank Chair Nadler for calling this 
hearing and our Witnesses who joined us today to sound the 
alarm about the imminent restrictions on American reproductive 
freedom. For my entire adult life, abortion has been recognized 
as a legal form of healthcare and so have a growing number of 
types of contraception.
    That means that I've had the freedom to decide when and if 
I would become a parent. I did eventually so decide with my 
husband to have three wonderful children. I had the freedom to 
make that decision on my own terms after I completed years of 
college, law school, a judicial clerkship, and legal training.
    I had the freedom to make the decision to become a parent 
when I was physically, emotionally, and financially ready to 
take that step. I had the freedom to make that decision once I 
was ready to spend 30 months being pregnant with all the 
temporary and permanent physical changes that entails and ready 
to spend the next 30 years and counting nurturing those 
children and putting their needs ahead of my own. I was able to 
make those decisions about my health and well-being and that of 
my family because of Roe v. Wade and other cases such as 
Griswold that recognized that as Americans we have human rights 
and constitutional rights to privacy and liberty to make these 
most deeply personal decisions about whether and when to become 
a parent and whether and whom to marry, ourselves and with 
those most concerned and close to us, whether a family, medical 
providers, or faith leaders, free from government interference 
and control.
    We've heard from some of today's Witnesses how having that 
choice or lacking that choice due to opportunity or resources 
had a huge impact on their lives. I've also seen the impact 
upon the health and well-being of clients I represented as a 
lawyer of having the freedom, resources, and support, or lack 
thereof, to make reproductive decisions free from government 
interference. The vast majority of Americans understand that 
reproductive health decisions are complex and should be made by 
a woman and those she's close to based on their individual 
medical, emotional, financial, and other circumstances and that 
the government does not belong in control of that decision.
    We're at a point where the draft opinion in Dobbs v. 
Jackson Women's Health Organization indicates that the Supreme 
Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade which will threaten 
access to abortion care across the country and undermine other 
personal privacy and liberty rights. Some of our colleagues 
have suggested that the purpose of this hearing is to pressure 
the Supreme Court's decision in the Dobbs' case. I would 
suggest that our Republican colleagues and particularly Mitch 
McConnell have already exercised undue influence on the Supreme 
Court's decision by packing the Court with far-right justices.
    I would counter that the purpose of this hearing is exactly 
as its title suggests, to examine the likely impact upon 
American freedom to make reproductive healthcare decisions if 
Roe v. Wade is overturned. Opening the door to increasingly 
restrictive laws and, as Senator McConnell and others have 
suggested, an outright national ban on abortion care. Last 
fall, the House voted to pass the Women's Health Protection Act 
which would codify many of the rights enshrined in Roe v. Wade 
and Casey.
    The Senate needs to join us in protecting this essential 
human right to privacy and liberty by passing that bill. If the 
current Senate won't pass the bill, then the majority of 
Americans who support having American's freedom to make 
reproductive healthcare decisions without government 
interference, they need to know that we need to change the 
Senate. Restricting access to abortion care has ripple effects 
across generations. We cannot go back to an era of criminalized 
abortion.
    So, one of my priorities in Congress has been to address 
our country's rising and unnecessary rate of maternal 
mortality, a healthcare emergency that disproportionately 
affects many of my constituents. The U.S. has a pregnancy-
related death rate that far exceeds that of similar developed 
countries and is exponentially worse for women of color. The 
vast majority of such deaths are almost entirely preventable. 
With abortion healthcare on the chopping block, I'm very 
concerned about how maternal mortality across the country would 
be affected. Dr. Robinson, could you address that question for 
me?
    Dr. Robinson. Yes. I've taken care of pregnant people for 
more than 17 years. So, being a physician who cares for 
pregnant people, I do understand that there are circumstances 
where people do need access to the full gamut of options, 
including abortion care. The same communities that are having 
difficulty having access to compassionate abortion care are the 
same communities that do have the highest maternal mortality 
rates.
    This care is very important. I think that's the thing that 
we need to focus on is giving these patients what they need so 
that we can decrease that maternal and infant mortality rate, 
like, making sure that they have access to care and not just 
once they become pregnant. Then making sure that they can 
continue that access to care beyond a short postpartum period.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much. I see that my time has 
expired. At this time, I would recognize the gentleman from 
Texas for five minutes.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair. Earlier, somebody was positing 
what sets us apart as a country. I would suggest that it is 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the 
constitutional framework that protects that.
    Quick question for you, Ms. Foster. A lot has been made 
about the implications with respect to race on the Roe opinion 
and what may come down this summer. Would you agree that if you 
look at the most recent data, 38 percent of abortions affect 
Black babies?
    Ms. Foster. Tragically, yes.
    Mr. Roy. Twenty-one percent affect Hispanic babies?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Roy. A lot of numbers have been raised about--or a lot 
of questions and issues have been raised about rape and incest. 
In fact, you had an exchange with my colleague from Maryland, 
Mr. Raskin, about whether or not he would accept limits on 
abortion if there was, in fact, an exception for rape and 
incest. Could you clarify for the record, the Guttmacher 
Institute is an arm of Planned Parenthood, correct?
    Ms. Foster. Yes, founded as the research arm of Planned 
Parenthood.
    Mr. Roy. According to data that I have, less than one 
percent of abortions are connected to rape, less than half 
percent are connected to incest according to Guttmacher. Does 
that line up with your understanding?
    Ms. Foster. According to the Guttmacher Institute, ``data 
suggests that most women seeking later terminations are not 
doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.'' 
That's a quote. In fact, it's the same top reasons as first 
trimester abortions which are financial hardship, relationship 
issues, and not feeling ready to be a parent which are all 
issues where we as a caring nation and as loving communities 
can come alongside the woman.
    Mr. Roy. So, I think it merits conversation again to your 
point, yes or no, do you believe that your answer was--the 
answer from Mr. Raskin, would it be a yes or a no? It would be 
no, correct?
    Ms. Foster. It would be no.
    Mr. Roy. You would not accept limits on abortion. Even if 
you exempted the one, 1\1/2\ percent that falls in that 
category. Ms. Arrambide, really quick, you made a couple of 
points I think during your testimony about Texas not being a 
particularly hospitable place generally or with respect to 
women as it relates to abortion and made a point about lack of 
care provided for women.
    Is it correct--I have information I believe that says that 
there are 8\1/2\ pro-pregnancy and pregnancy counseling centers 
for every one abortion clinic in the State of Texas. The 
legislature in passing S.B. 8 appropriated 100 million dollars 
for women's healthcare. I guess my question here is in light of 
that and in light of Texas being an inhospitable place 
according to your testimony, are you aware of how many people 
moved to the State of Texas in the last decade? Do you know 
what that number is?
    Ms. Arrambide. I don't know.
    Mr. Roy. Yeah, four million people have moved to the State 
of Texas in the last decade.
    Ms. Arrambide. I will say that the clinics that you're 
referring to are free clinics and they don't actually--
    Mr. Roy. That's the population of the entire State of 
Alabama have moved to the State of Texas by choice in the last 
decade. I would move to one other question here. Ms. Robinson--
    Ms. Arrambide. Could I finish my answer, though, about 
Texas--
    Mr. Roy. I didn't ask you a question about that. Ms. 
Robinson, I would ask you a question. When is the latest that 
you have performed an abortion in terms of weeks of the unborn 
child?
    Dr. Robinson. Yes, my name is Dr. Robinson, and I provide 
abortion care in Alabama. So, Alabama has a--
    Mr. Roy. What is the answer to the question, the latest 
that you have performed an abortion?
    Dr. Robinson. I'm going to answer your question. So, 
unfortunately--
    Mr. Roy. It's a number, weeks.
    Dr. Robinson. --my State is one of those States that has 
passed restrictions or bans on abortion care which limits 
physicians like myself--
    Mr. Roy. Therefore, in other words, you'd like to do it 
later. What is the latest you performed an abortion?
    Dr. Robinson. So, since I will always follow the law and I 
live in the State of Alabama, I provide abortion care up until 
20 weeks gestational age.
    Mr. Roy. Okay. So, you performed an abortion at 20 weeks.
    Dr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Roy. The procedure for an abortion when we're talking 
about at 20 weeks, as I understand it, is dilation and 
extraction. Have you performed abortions at that stage? In 
doing so, have you had baby parts that you've had to discard or 
store in some capacity?
    Dr. Robinson. One of the things that you all have done--
    Mr. Roy. Legs, arms, eyes?
    Dr. Robinson. --throughout this hearing is just use 
inflammatory language--
    Mr. Roy. No, it's a question. Ma'am--it's a simple 
question.
    Dr. Robinson. --as you talk about the care that we provide.
    Mr. Roy. Have you had human parts, baby parts, arms, legs, 
as a result of an abortion performed at the time you just 
acknowledged--
    Dr. Robinson. I am a physician--
    Mr. Roy. --you performed abortions up to 20 weeks.
    Dr. Robinson. --and a proud abortion provider. There is 
nothing that you can say--
    Mr. Roy. Yes or no--
    Dr. Robinson. --that makes it difficult--for me to talk 
about the care that I provide to patients.
    Mr. Roy. Ma'am, so, have there been baby parts, yes or not?
    Dr. Robinson. If you will like for me to talk to you about 
how we perform an abortion for patients who need care--
    Mr. Roy. Where and how have they been stored? So, the 
answer to the question is fairly obvious.
    Dr. Robinson. --at 20 weeks gestational age, I'm happy--
    Mr. Roy. There are baby parts, and you don't want to talk 
about how they're being stored. You don't want to talk about 
putting them in freezers. You don't want to talk about putting 
them in Pyrex dishes. You don't want to talk about the videos 
that we have from Planned Parenthood at Gulf Coast in Houston, 
Texas. You don't want to talk about the reality of what 
actually happens.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Roy. I yield back.
    Dr. Robinson. If you don't mind me answering, all those 
things that you just mentioned, I have never seen that in a 
healthcare setting ever. We don't put baby parts in freezers or 
Pyrex dishes. I've never seen a patient--
    Mr. Roy. Well, I asked where you put them. Well, then where 
do they go?
    Ms. Scanlon. Gentleman's time has expired.
    Dr. Robinson. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon. The Chair recognizes Ms. McBath for five 
minutes.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you so 
much to Chair Nadler. Thank you so much to our Witnesses today. 
We really appreciate you being here under such duress.
    Like so many women in America, for years I struggled to get 
pregnant. My husband and I, we tried everything that we could 
do to start a family of our own. Finally, we were successful.
    I had never been so happy. I prayed for this moment for so 
many years. I wanted to tell everyone. I just wanted to shout 
it from all the mountaintops. For weeks I began to dream about 
our life and our future together.
    Then one day I woke up covered in blood. It is hard to 
describe the agony of a miscarriage. It is heartbreak, it is 
helplessness, it is pain, and it is profound sadness. Millions 
of women suffer from them. I have heard from many who felt 
guilty, like I did, who felt as though that we weren't worthy 
of having a child.
    Those are the same feelings that cut through my mind. Every 
time I have had these difficult discussions with other women, I 
remind them that they are strong, and that they are powerful 
beyond measure, and that their worth is far more than their 
ability to procreate.
    However, it seems those in support of this ruling disagree.
    After my second miscarriage I wondered, in my grief again, 
if God had decided I was never meant to be a mother. So, when I 
finally got pregnant again, I was overjoyed because I believed 
that God was giving me and my husband, finally, he had a plan 
for us to be parents.
    After four months, while feeling terror and trauma in my 
heart, I was rushed to the emergency room. There, with my 
doctor and my husband, I learned that I had suffered a fetal 
demise, or a stillbirth. There again I was filled with anguish, 
and sorrow, and guilt. I tried so hard, and still I felt like I 
failed trying to be a mother.
    My doctor thought it would be better to, and safer to end 
the pregnancy naturally, without the medicines so commonly 
used. So, for two weeks I carried my dead fetus and waited for 
me to go into labor. For two weeks people passed me on the 
street telling me how beautiful I looked, asking how far along 
I was, and saying that they were so excited for me and my 
future with my child.
    For two weeks I carried a lost pregnancy and the torment 
that comes with it. I never went into labor on my own. When my 
doctor finally induced me, I faced the pain of labor without 
hope for a living child.
    This is my story. It is uniquely my story. Yet, it is not 
so unique. Millions of women in America, women in this room, 
women at your homes, the women you love and cherish have 
suffered a miscarriage.
    So, I ask on behalf of these women, after which failed 
pregnancy should I have been imprisoned? Would it have been 
after the first miscarriage? After doctors used what would be 
an illegal drug to abort the lost fetus? Would you have put me 
in jail after the second miscarriage? Perhaps that would have 
been the time, forced to reflect in confinement at the guilt I 
felt, the guilt that so many women feel after losing their 
pregnancy.
    Or would you have put me behind bars after my stillbirth, 
after I was forced to carry a dead fetus for weeks after asking 
God if I was ever going to be able to raise a child?
    I ask, because the same medicine used to treat my failed 
pregnancies is the same medicine States like Texas would make 
illegal.
    I ask, because if Alabama makes abortion murder, does it 
make miscarriage manslaughter?
    I ask, because I want to know if the next woman who has a 
miscarriage at three months, if she will be forced to carry her 
dead fetus to term?
    So, for the women in your life whose stories you do not 
know, for the women across the country whose lives you may not 
understand, and for the women in America who have gone through 
things you simply cannot comprehend, I say to you this: Women's 
rights are human rights. Reproductive healthcare is healthcare. 
Medical decisions should be made by women and those that they 
trust, not politicians and officials.
    We have a choice. We can be the nation that rolls back the 
clock, that rolls back the rights of women, and that strips 
them of their very liberty, or we can be the nation of choice, 
the nation where every woman can make her own choice. Freedom 
is our right to choose.
    Chair Nadler. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon said a few minutes ago that this hearing is 
called because of an imminent peril to the right of abortion.
    Professor Goodwin, I guess you are the only Witness 
presented by the majority as having expertise in the law. Do 
you unequivocally condemn the leak of the draft opinion?
    Ms. Goodwin. It is absolutely unprecedented that there is a 
leak. It is a story; it is not the story of these hearings. 
That is unprecedented.
    Mr. Bishop. No, I didn't--I am aware it is unprecedented. 
So, that is factual. Many people have covered that.
    I am interested as a matter of your expertise; do you 
condemn it? Was it wrong to leak the opinion?
    Ms. Goodwin. I believe that, I believe that the justices 
need to be able to deliberate privately. I think that leaks 
such as this make that difficult.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said 
that you use she/her pronouns. You are a medical doctor. What 
is a woman?
    Dr. Robinson. It is important for you to understand why I 
said, ``I use she/her pronouns.'' It is because I understand 
that--
    Mr. Bishop. Well, I am explaining. I was explaining why I 
am asking the question. I just thought you can answer the 
question.
    What is a woman?
    Dr. Robinson. I think it is important that we educate 
people like you about why we are doing the things that we do. 
So, the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I 
understand that there are people who become pregnant that may 
not identify that way.
    I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call 
them in such a way as they desire not to be called.
    Mr. Bishop. Thanks for that explanation.
    Dr. Robinson. So, it is important that we respect each 
individual person--
    Mr. Bishop. Are you going to answer my question? Can you 
answer the question; what is a woman?
    Dr. Robinson. I am a woman.
    I will ask you, which pronouns do you use?
    Mr. Bishop. Can you provide--
    Dr. Robinson. If you tell me that you use she and her 
pronouns,--
    Mr. Bishop. Is that--
    Dr. Robinson. --I am going to answer you, I am going to 
call you Mr. Bishop. I am going to respect you for how you want 
me to address you.
    Mr. Bishop. I am just asking, so you have given me an 
example of a woman. You say that you are a woman. Can you tell 
me, otherwise can you tell me what a woman is?
    Dr. Robinson. Yes. I am telling you; I am a woman.
    Mr. Bishop. Is that as comprehensive a definition as you 
can give me?
    Dr. Robinson. That is as comprehensive of a definition as I 
will give you today.
    Mr. Bishop. I see.
    Dr. Robinson. Because I think it is important that we focus 
on what we are here for. It is to talk about access to abortion 
care and how important this right is.
    Mr. Bishop. I see. So, you are not interested in answering 
the question I asked unless, in answering the question that I 
asked unless it is part of a message you want to deliver. Is 
that right?
    Dr. Robinson. I am sorry. Because I was talking, and you 
were talking at the same time.
    Mr. Bishop. Yes, ma'am. I am, right, it is my, it is my 
time.
    Dr. Robinson. Okay. I just--
    Mr. Bishop. It is my time to ask you questions. That is the 
purpose of this. I ask you to uncover things by asking you 
questions and asking you to respond.
    So, you are not willing to answer a question unless it is 
part of the message you wish to deliver. Is that correct?
    Dr. Robinson. So, what I was trying to explain to you is 
that I had a difficult time hearing you since we were talking 
at the same time.
    Mr. Bishop. Let me just see if I can go to Ms. Arrambide. 
Is that a pretty close approximation of the pronunciation?
    Ms. Arrambide. Arrambide.
    Mr. Bishop. Arrambide. Okay.
    What do you say a woman is?
    Ms. Arrambide. I believe that anyone can identify for 
themselves.
    Mr. Bishop. Okay. Do you believe then that men can become 
pregnant and have abortions?
    Ms. Arrambide. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop. Professor Goodwin, the draft opinion says this, 
in part:

        The Court has no authority to decree that an erroneous 
        precedent is permanently exempt from evaluation under 
        traditional stare decisis principles. Adherence to precedent is 
        the norm, but not an inexorable command. If the rule were, 
        otherwise, erroneous decisions like Plessy and Lochner would 
        still be the law.

Professor, isn't that inarguably true? Mustn't it be the case 
that all prior decisions of the Court are subject to 
reevaluation?
    Ms. Goodwin. Oh, it is certainly the case that we have in 
the legacy of this Court: Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown 
v. Board of Education. So, the ability to be able to review is 
important. That is the ability to be able to review.
    It is another thing when the Supreme Court then strips away 
a fundamental protection that has been made, particularly given 
that the justices who may be involved in this leaked draft 
opinion suggested that they actually respected the precedent 
and stare decisis associated with Roe. They were not talking 
about Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott when they said that they 
respected that stare decisis.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, those are examples. So, Roe and Casey 
would be equally susceptible to reevaluation as Plessy. Would 
you agree?
    Ms. Goodwin. Well, and in fact, they certainly could be and 
be further expanded. They have been.
    So, one of the things we haven't talked about is that there 
is Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, and even just a couple 
years ago, June Medical v. Russo, which this Supreme Court used 
to further uphold the principles of Roe v. Wade and also 
Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
    Mr. Bishop. I yield back. My time has expired.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Escobar.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to thank our Witnesses. It has been really 
challenging to listen to my Republican colleagues essentially 
minimize and, in fact, completely ignore how difficult 
decisions like this are for women all over the country.
    It is even more difficult to listen to them Act as though 
they know better for women what women--how women should plan 
their future. The fact that they believe they should be the 
ones to stand between a woman and her doctor.
    It is shocking to me how backward this thinking is, and the 
dark days they want to return women to.
    I want to share a story briefly of someone close to me.
    Once the Supreme Court draft was made public, a mother, an 
incredible mother approached me to share with me her story of 
her abortion.
    She was pregnant with her third child. She and her husband 
were excited about this baby. They bought a crib. They prepared 
the room. They were fortunate. She was in a stable marriage, in 
a stable family. They had means to provide for their baby. So, 
they were making plans for this baby.
    In her final trimester she heard the horrific news that her 
baby was not viable. Then she learned that if she carried the 
baby to term, she would likely die, leaving her kids 
motherless, leaving her husband without a partner, without a 
wife.
    So, she made the decision to terminate a pregnancy that she 
wanted and had planned for. She had to undergo this procedure 
at a clinic.
    The very same people here who are of the belief that they 
should tell women how to live their lives and usurp the 
authority of a physician, it was those types of people standing 
outside that clinic who were jeering and taunting this mourning 
mother, this mother who couldn't even mourn the loss of her 
baby because she had to hear the screams of people judging her 
and yelling at her.
    To those who think, those in America who believe that my 
extreme MAGA colleagues aren't coming for you, they are coming 
for you. They are coming for your rights. We have heard today 
absolute proof that they want to ban abortion across the United 
States.
    So, let that be absolutely clear. There is no State where 
government-forced birth won't be happening.
    If Samuel Alito tells you they are not coming for you, just 
remember this is a Supreme Court majority that lied to Congress 
and lied to the American people. So, it is a majority without 
integrity.
    Remember that the people who are trying to stand between 
you and your doctor are the same people who voted against paid 
family and medical leave so that mamas could stay home with 
their babies.
    They are the same people who voted against access to 
childcare so mamas could go to work to provide for their 
babies.
    These are the same people who voted against universal pre-K 
so that mamas could give their babies a fighting chance at an 
education.
    These are the same people who put guns ahead of the lives 
of school children, because schoolchildren, as we know, go to 
school in terror. Their parents send their kids to school 
terrified that their kids might not come home.
    These are the same people who champion Trump policies of 
family separation.
    So, let's remember who the people in Congress are who 
support families and who value mothers and babies.
    If we want to reduce abortion, then we would provide free 
contraception and widely-accepted sex education. They are 
against that, too.
    Dr. Robinson, I want to ask you, because your voice, they 
have been trying to obscure your voice and your message, 
speaking over you. In the remaining 30 seconds, anything you 
would like to correct the record on?
    Dr. Robinson. Yes. One of the things I did want to say was 
there no doubt in my mind about life. I understand that once a 
sperm meets an egg that there is the potential for life. I do 
also understand that some people believe that life begins at 
conception, and some people feel that it begins at a different 
point.
    I think what we need to consider is that what goes into 
that is everybody's belief system, their upbringing, their 
values. We should respect that. For those people who feel like 
life begins at conception, I welcome them to never have an 
abortion ever in their life. We should respect that.
    I also feel that they should respect the decision of people 
who do decide that an abortion is what is right for them and 
for their families.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
    Dr. Robinson. I am so sorry about the situation with the 
person you spoke about who had to go to an abortion clinic and 
face the harassment and the jeering as she went in and mourn 
her child. My patients face that on a daily basis, because she 
cannot get that care in the hospital, even when there is a 
complicated pregnancy. So, this is the reality for many of our 
patients.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Dr. Robinson.
    To the American people watching at home, remember they are 
coming for you, too.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Owens.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Last week, at a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Treasury 
Secretary Janet Yellen testified that restricting abortions 
would have a very damaging effect on the economy. As she took 
the position of representing teenagers, low-income women, and 
minorities, Secretary Yellen argued that ending the life of an 
unborn child is a good thing for the labor force participation 
rate.
    Since I am very aware of the founder of Parent Parenthood--
Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, I find the parroting of 
her manifesto by Secretary Yellen, the devaluation of life of 
an unborn, poor Black and minority children as very concerning.
    I have also been aware of Sanger's 1946 book, The Negro 
Project, in which she shared her vision of poor Blacks and 
other minorities. I quote, ``The gradual suppression, 
elimination, and eventual extinction of a defective stock, 
those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest 
flowers of American civilization.'' She was a favorite, by the 
way, of the White supremacist, KKK speaking circuit. When she 
set up her first abortion shop, it was in Black Harlem in 1921.
    These are words of a rabid racist founder of Planned 
Parenthood. That's a multibillion-dollar global abortion 
cartel, and been responsible for the deaths--and that is going 
to be her legacy--the deaths of tens of millions of Black 
babies and other children.
    Thank goodness for Senator Tim Scott upon hearing the 
statement by Secretary Yellen calling it out for what it was: 
Biased, callous, and calculated. I agree with my friend Senator 
Scott who learned from his single mother that there is dignity 
in all work, and dignity in all life.
    In an op ed published in yesterday's Washington Post, 
Senator Scott wrote:

        We live in a world where words are too often disconnected from 
        the lived experiences of many Americans. Yellen's cold and 
        robotic reference to the issue of life is just the latest 
        example of that.

Secretary Yellen's comments is also deeply offensive to me. For 
years, the Black community has been disproportionately targeted 
by the abortionist industry. I have watched it happen. We lost 
over 20 million Black babies over the last 40 years. That is 40 
percent of my race exterminated before given a chance to bless 
our nation with their innate talents.
    Based on her conclusion, their demise is a good thing for 
our labor force participation rates. Secretary Yellen has 
obviously concluded that these 20 million Black lives would 
have been an economic drain on our society.
    A 2017 report by the Life Issues Institute found that 88 
percent of Planned Parenthood megacenters targeted women of 
color, with 80 percent specifically targeting Black 
communities, and 56 percent targeting Hispanic and Latino 
communities. For those who love the concept of equity, and 
everything under the sun, including test score outcomes, when 
it comes to the death of the unborn, the abortion equity seems 
to be pretty racist to me.
    Abortion is not healthcare. Healthcare doesn't result in 
the intentional death of over 60 million human beings. It 
undermines the dignity and worth of every individual and their 
God-given right to life.
    If a woman feels that abortion is her only and best option, 
I believe that woman has been failed by her family, her 
partner, her community, and her healthcare providers.
    I am the father of six children and 16 grandchildren. Our 
pride comes from the joy of watching them grow and start a 
family of their own, even if their circumstances aren't perfect 
or, as Ms. Yellen would have us believe, an economic burden.
    Now, two of my beautiful, loving, talented children were 
born after my NFL career, after I lost everything due to a 
failed business, and after a brief job stint as a chimney sweep 
and a security guard. Thank goodness I was raised by a 
generation of proud Black Americans who taught me that in 
America our financial status does not define us. It can be 
temporary.
    Our children and family relationships, on the other hand, 
are not only eternal but an invaluable treasure during our 
brief time on this earth. They are the only legacy at the end 
of our lives that really matter. Our children are the most 
precious gifts and blessings from a loving God. The fight to 
defend life has never been more important, the fight to defend 
the founding ideals of our nation that all people are created 
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain 
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness has never been more important.
    I ask for unanimous consent to place Senator Scott's 
Washington Times op ed titled, ``Tim Scott: Abortion is not the 
way to help single Black mothers,'' in the record.
    [The information follows:]



      

                        MR. OWENS FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Owens. With the last few seconds I have, Ms. Foster, do 
you have any comments that you would like to add to the record?
    Ms. Foster. That brought me to tears. Amen to everything 
you just said.
    I would just say when it comes to helping mothers in 
difficult situations and living in poverty, go ask Planned 
Parenthood if they provide diapers, formula, a crib, rent 
assistance, food, bill assistance, counseling, mammograms, 
continuing education, you know. Then compare that to what 
pregnancy care centers offer. Then come tell me that pro-lifers 
are the ones that don't care for children after they are born. 
Give me a break.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you.
    The legacy of Sanger will be for death. That is what she 
will be known for.
    Thank you so much for that.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous 
consent request.
    Chair Nadler. Wait one second.
    The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman is recognized for a unanimous consent 
request.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. Just to enter into the 
record a letter that we received today from the American 
Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                        MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA

                             FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Stanton.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Like most of my colleagues, I was shocked to learn the news 
that a draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health had 
leaked from the Supreme Court. As I read that opinion, my shock 
turned to disbelief. My disbelief turned to outrage.
    It has been nearly 50 years since the Court decided Roe v. 
Wade. In that half century, the American people have recognized 
the constitutional right to an abortion, the constitutional 
right to make an informed medical decision with their doctor, 
the constitutional right to exercise control of their own body.
    The American people support that right. I have learned 
during my time in public life that although there are wide-
ranging personal opinions about abortion, most Americans 
believe that the government has no business getting between a 
woman and her doctor. They believe that government has no 
business forcing a woman who does not want to be pregnant, to 
remain pregnant.
    They know at their core that it is wrong and morally 
reprehensible for the government to force a victim of sexual 
assault to carry her rapist's child. That is what is at stake. 
If Roe is overturned, as we expect it will be, that will be the 
future for women in many States, including my State, Arizona.
    Arizona's governor has signed an anti-abortion law that 
provides no safe harbor for victims of rape or incest. Some 
State legislatures working with the anti-Roe activists are 
gearing up to go even further, outlawing abortion altogether.
    The American people do not want that. They support Roe. 
They support the right to choose to have an abortion.
    In my State, which is evenly split among party lines, more 
than 70 percent of voters oppose making abortion illegal. So, 
that might explain why up to this point my Republican 
colleagues have been more concerned with the leak itself than 
what the draft decision actually says, and what it would mean 
for our country.
    This issue is about choice. It is about self-determination. 
It is about liberty. Americans believe in those freedoms. They 
rely upon them. That is why the fight to protect them is so 
important.
    Should the draft opinion become the decision of the Supreme 
Court, the rationale used to overturn Roe could easily be used 
to undermine other fundamental rights, including the right to 
access contraception, and the right to marry who you love.
    Now, today we have heard so many misstatements and attacks 
on our esteemed panel of Witnesses, so I did want to give the 
remainder of my time, offer it to either Dr. Robinson or 
Professor Goodwin to correct the record and respond to any of 
the comments that have been made here today.
    Professor?
    Ms. Goodwin. I will start.
    Mr. Stanton. Please.
    Ms. Goodwin. Yes.
    Well, in the comments today there has been the suggestion 
that other rights such as right to contraception would not be 
rolled back. Here is what I want to share.
    Speaking on CNN on Sunday, May 8th, Mississippi Governor 
Tate Reeves refused to rule out attempting to ban some forms of 
contraception if the Court overrules Roe v. Wade.
    In Idaho, in an interview on May 6th with the Idaho Public 
Television, Republican State Representative Brent Crane said he 
would hold hearings on legislation banning emergency 
contraception and abortion pills.
    Equally, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed into law 
additional restrictions on dispensing of abortion pills, 
including that medication abortion be provided by qualified 
physicians.
    We have also seen in the last week or so States like 
Louisiana seeking to criminalize and punish abortion as 
homicide, and to allow prosecutors to criminally charge 
patients.
    That is just the beginning. I could go through a list even 
deeper and longer than that.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much.
    Dr. Robinson, do you have anything to add?
    Dr. Robinson. Yes. I just wanted the opportunity just to 
clear up the record.
    There has been lots of mention like, or it has been 
suggested that women or pregnant people are callously making 
the decision to just terminate their pregnancy at random points 
in the pregnancy. I think that as a person who provides 
abortion care, my patients, when they come in, it is very clear 
that they are very thoughtful in this decision.
    As we have said, many abortions do take place in the first 
trimester. However, abortion care needs to be accessible as a 
pregnancy progresses. Sometimes that may be later in the 
pregnancy.
    I know that it is hard for people to imagine those 
circumstances where a person may have to choose to end a 
pregnancy later in gestation. That is why we should leave that 
to the professionals, to the medical doctors, and to the 
patient.
    Then, also to suggest that we need to put restrictions in 
place or to keep passing bans, as if we would perform an 
abortion without obtaining consent. That is part of what we do 
as medical professionals. There is no other procedure, not even 
removing a toenail, that we do without obtaining proper, 
informed consent. There is informed decision making that goes 
into the care that we provide. That is taking place without 
representatives having to keep passing bills and putting these 
things in place.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have one more 
unanimous consent. I apologize.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman is recognized for one more 
unanimous consent request, until the next one.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
    This is a letter to the Members of the House Committee on 
the Judiciary from Students for Life Action. I move it into the 
record of the hearing.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                        MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA

                             FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Tiffany.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
    This is terrific that, in many ways, that we are having 
this hearing because this is going to be the beginning point 
where the American people are really going to see the details 
behind Roe v. Wade. They are going to see the details behind 
this, rather than a couple talking points, where they are going 
to understand, I believe, better what is all happening behind 
this issue.
    I have heard the incendiary rhetoric at times that 
abortions are all going to be outlawed, they are coming for 
you, and various things like this.
    I would share with you in the Wisconsin State Senate that I 
served in for nearly 10 years, that seven years ago we passed a 
20-week bill. While I would have probably chosen to go to a 
little different place than a 20-week bill, that is what we 
passed with the consensus of the representatives of the people 
of the State of Wisconsin.
    My colleague from Arizona just cited that I come from a 
State that is evenly split. Well, we are the definition of an 
evenly split State in Wisconsin, and we came to seven years ago 
that we should be at 20 weeks.
    The most important thing is that the representatives of the 
people of the State of Wisconsin were debating it.
    So, since Roe v. Wade has happened here is what we have 
learned.
    Chair Nadler. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Tiffany. As long as you don't take any of my five 
minutes.
    Chair Nadler. It won't take me.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yeah, go ahead.
    Chair Nadler. I have been very loose with the gavel, as you 
may have noticed.
    This is the United States of America. Why should the rights 
of a citizen depend on which State they live in? That is my 
question.
    Mr. Tiffany. The rights of the people of the United States 
should be carried--those rights should be, first, they are 
imbued by our creator at the founding. Then it is up to the 
will of the people. That is what Roe circumvented. That 
circumvented the will of the people.
    It was judge-made law, not law of the people of our 
country.
    So, anyhow, if I may continue.
    Since Roe v. Wade, here is what we have learned. Look at 
these billboards that you see all across the country. At six 
weeks, the child has a heartbeat. They have a heartbeat in that 
womb. Fifteen weeks they can feel pain.
    We largely didn't know that, I don't think, at Roe. Some 
doctors may know better than I do. That is something we didn't 
know. The medical technology in the last 50 years is incredible 
what has happened that has shown us the humanity of that baby 
that is in the mother's womb.
    So, so much has changed. That is why, that is part of the 
reason why, I think you have seen justices come, what appears 
to be that they are going to come to a different conclusion 
here, rather than this judge-made law back in 1973.
    I want to share something here right now that should be 
deeply concerning to all of us. I hope the Chair and others on 
this Committee will say we cannot have this happen here in 
America.
    If you could please play some audio.
    What we are waiting for is audio of a message that was left 
at the Wisconsin Family Action Offices at Madison that, as you 
can see in the picture behind me, was fire-bombed shortly after 
the release, release of the opinion.

[Audio available at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/
0zjcb8cvvun14ei9t4fyz/2022.05.18-Tiffany-Mostly-
peaceful.pptx?dl=0&rlkey=52o59zt80gy7p30gox9cn0xa6]

    Mr. Tiffany. I am sorry for the language that is contained 
in that. There were multiple messages sent in the same vein to 
the Wisconsin Family Action, an advocacy group that just 
advocates for life.
    This is what happened to their building.
    I hope the Attorney General of the United States is going 
to enforce the laws protecting our justices as they--people 
attempt to intimidate them. I hope the Attorney General 
protects Wisconsin Family Action as, as I hope no more groups, 
but a group in Madison, Wisconsin has said this is going to be 
the summer of rage in Madison, Wisconsin.
    I hope everyone rises up and says that is not acceptable in 
what should be normal discourse here in the United States of 
America. I hope the Attorney General is paying attention and he 
does not treat the Wisconsin Family Action Council like he 
treated parents before school boards here in the United States.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Tiffany. I will yield. I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Garcia.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your 
leadership in convening this, what arguably could be the most 
important and impactful hearing we will hold for generations to 
come.
    As a Catholic, my faith, and the love for others that we 
preach, I have to support the freedom for women to make a 
deeply personal and private decision about their own 
healthcare. As a Catholic and Christian, I am not one to judge, 
punish, or shame someone who has decided to have an abortion. 
As Catholics, we were taught, as Jesus did, to treat those 
going through uneasy times with kindness and compassion.
    Freedom has no gender. It is not wrapped in pink and baby 
blue. Freedom is for all. Government has no place in imposing 
itself on a woman's freedom in making her own private personal 
decision when it comes to her pregnancy.
    Abortion is healthcare. Abortion is a human right, period.
    The public agrees. Recent Gallup poll found 80 percent of 
Americans believe that abortions should be safe and legal. 
Washington Post similarly found 75 percent support protecting 
Roe.
    In my own district we did a text survey of over 40,000 
people. Keep in mind, Mr. Chair, my district is 77 percent 
Latino. Forty percent--40 thousand on our text survey, 76 
percent said they favored having women's rights to have a safe, 
legal abortion.
    The justices may ignore settled law, lawmakers may ignore 
the public, but true justice and freedom means ensuring 
abortion care is safe, available, and affordable for all.
    I would like to start with the doctor here. I had already 
told her I was going to ask her a question during the break.
    Have you heard of the Lizelle Herrera case in South Texas? 
Lizelle Herrera, she was a young woman whose self-induced 
abortion, she had some problems, went to a hospital. The 
hospital reported her. The D.A. charged her with murder. She 
had to stay two days in jail till she was bonded on a half 
million-dollar bond.
    Dr. Robinson. I am not familiar with the details of that.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, I bring it up because if we go, if we get 
rid of Roe v. Wade, which is what the goal is for the 
Republican Party and the extreme Supreme Court justices, and we 
may go to a situation where we criminalize the care that you 
and many provide. For instance, here the hospital was the one 
who reported her. In Texas' trigger law, once Roe v. Wade is 
overturned, within 30 days there is a complete ban. If a 
provider provides any services, or aids and abets, they could 
be charged with a felony, a felony.
    As a provider yourself, what do you think, what is your 
opinion on this criminalization of abortion care, or 
healthcare?
    Dr. Robinson. I think it is quite devastating. I think it 
is going to be harmful to patients.
    If the real goal is to protect women, this is doing exactly 
the opposite. It puts physicians in a situation where they are 
not looking out for the best interests of their patients. They 
are having to take their own interests, their own freedom into 
consideration. So, it is going to harm, it is going to harm 
people.
    Ms. Garcia. It is.
    Do you think it will have a chilling effect on some people, 
some doctors and providers, hospital workers who won't even 
want to provide some of the care, even in terms of emergencies?
    Dr. Robinson. Oh, absolutely. I am already seeing that, and 
we are not post-Roe yet.
    I have had a patient--
    Ms. Garcia. Well, unfortunately, we are in Texas, as the 
other Witnesses pointed out, so.
    Dr. Robinson. You are right. That is, that is very 
unfortunate.
    Even in Alabama we are not there yet, and we have had 
patients that have come in who got medication that was legal 
for care that they needed, and their physician was unwilling to 
see them following taking that medication. They were afraid 
that they would be breaking the law.
    That is going to happen time and time again.
    Ms. Garcia. To quickly switch to the professor.
    Professor, you heard our governor suggest that what we need 
to look at now that we can overturn long, 49-year history of 
law, that we should look at the case that tells us in Texas and 
around, others around the State, country, that all children 
must be educated regardless of their immigration status.
    Here we have a White supremacist in Tennessee saying, well, 
if we can overturn Roe, let's overturn Brown v. Board of 
Education. Is that where we are going? What is next?
    Ms. Goodwin. What is next is that the State legislators are 
saying, what you have just said is what will be debated on 
those State legislatures and may become law.
    Ms. Garcia. That is most unfortunate, Mr. Chair. There is 
so much more I could say.
    I will be submitting additional questions for the record.
    With that, I yield back. I think my time has expired.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Bentz.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to begin by thanking the Witnesses for participating 
in such a challenging hearing.
    This hearing is, obviously, intended to provide an 
opportunity for the majority to call out the Supreme Court, 
that is, to intimidate and bully the Court as it works to 
address one of the most difficult issues any judge will ever 
face.
    It is also an opportunity for all of us to ask the American 
people to avoid violence, and on either side, and to let the 
process work.
    This hearing today, although I wish we weren't having it 
based upon a leaked memo, is evidence of the process working. 
Now, sometimes it works slowly. It has taken 50 years for this 
issue to come before the Court. The process, though, does work.
    The Committee has engaged in a lot of discussion about we 
Republicans being pro-life, it is only natural that we 
Republicans should take this opportunity to call out exactly 
where the Democrats stand on the issue. I think the best means 
of doing that is by drawing attention to the Women's Health 
Protection Act.
    Ms. Foster, Bill Manchin said that his party's bill is not 
Roe v. Wade codification but, instead, a dramatic expansion of 
Roe v. Wade. Could you comment?
    Ms. Foster. That is correct. In the very same sentence 
where he said that he would support codification, he said that 
he could not support the Women's Health Protection Act, so-
called, because it would so dramatically expand Roe v. Wade and 
the regime of legalized abortion that we have had in our 
nation. It would wipe out more than 500 laws protecting women 
and children.
    Mr. Bentz. It would, would it not, federalize the abortion 
issue, taking it away from the States and imposing, if you 
will, the right to abortion from the time of conception until 
the time of birth. Is that correct?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely. Sure would.
    Mr. Bentz. So, there were some that suggested, even on your 
panel, that partial birth abortion, infanticide, just, just 
doesn't happen. Indeed, under that Act it would be allowed. Am 
I right?
    Ms. Foster. It would.
    Mr. Bentz. Can you go into more detail?
    Ms. Foster. Under this, under this act, under this 
potential law, partial birth abortion would be on the table, 
pretty much anything else that you can think of that we have 
worked for 49 years to protect in the days since Roe.
    We have had to enact all these hundreds of separate laws to 
protect women and children after Roe wiped all the abortion 
laws off the books in all 50 States, going beyond what any 
State had on the books at that time.
    So, this Act would go even further than that. It would 
force doctors to do abortions. It would allow for abortion up 
to the moment of birth. It would strip away any kind of 
informed consent protection, any kind of parental notification 
much less consent, any kind of health and safety standards. It 
goes against 50 years of conscience laws, 50 years of 
protections. That is what is taking us backward.
    Mr. Bentz. Let's make sure the record is clear. We are 
talking about the Women's Health Protection Act?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Bentz. To make it clear again, the assertion that 
partial birth abortion, and even infanticide, does not occur 
was not recognized in that bill, in other words, is still 
allowed. Is that correct?
    Ms. Foster. It would still be allowed, yes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Jones.
    Mr. Jones. Mr. Chair, thank you for holding this very 
urgent hearing today. To all our Witnesses, thank you for your 
testimony, your very powerful, moving testimony.
    A lot has been said today. I have a set of remarks, 
questions. I just want to address a few things first.
    The first thing is I share in the outrage of my colleague 
Veronica Escobar who said earlier today that what we are 
hearing from our Republican colleagues, this attempt to seize 
the bodies of women in this country, is outlandish. It would 
not be happening if the roles were reversed.
    Can you imagine trying to regulate the healthcare decisions 
of men in this country? I know so many guys who don't even like 
being told to clean up after themselves, or to turn the TV 
down. So, the idea that we would have this concentrated effort 
to legislate a ban on the ability to women to simply make 
decisions about their own healthcase is absurd on its face. It 
is, obviously, going back in time to a place where I had hoped 
that we had gotten past. It is something that is hypocritical 
because the opposite would never be allowed to take place if 
the shoe was on the other foot.
    Mr. Owens is a nice guy. Also, made some outlandish 
comments earlier. He leveraged the fact that he was Black to 
validate those comments, which was a bit disturbing for me, who 
is also as an African American myself. It is simply the case 
that if the Republican Party cared about life, my Republican 
colleagues would be working with me to pass the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act to end police brutality in Black 
communities.
    If the Republican Party of today cared about life, they 
would be working with us to extend the expanded Child Tax 
Credit which, for a time, cut child poverty in this country in 
half.
    If the Republican Party cared about life, it would not be 
actively trying to undermine or outright overturn the 
Affordable Care Act, which has provided high quality, 
affordable healthcare for tens of millions more people in this 
country than who had it prior to the Democratic Congress' 
enactment of that legislation under Barack Obama.
    So, I think it is important to clarify the record when it 
comes to these issues.
    Professor Goodwin, at this Committee's markup last week, 
and again in today's hearing, a number of my Republican 
colleagues celebrated the criminalization of abortion as a win 
for democracy.
    On the Supreme Court, Justice Alito even blamed the very 
people whose rights he intends to erase, as we saw in his draft 
opinion. He wrote, ``Women are not without electoral or 
political power.''
    Professor Goodwin, in your written testimony you wrote, 
``It is offensively naive to suggest that these matters can be 
resolved at the State level through voting, particularly when 
voting rights are unprotected and voter suppression dominates 
the political process.''
    So, since my Republican colleagues don't seem to get it, 
would you help explain why it is so wrong for Republicans to 
blame women for the GOP's own war on abortion rights in light 
of their war on the voting rights of people of color?
    Thank you.
    Ms. Goodwin. That is right.
    Well, thank you so much for that question. In fact, they 
should not blame women. They should not be blaming women in 
Mississippi who, if they are Black, risk 118 times more likely 
to die by carrying a pregnancy to term than by having an 
abortion; a State in which 80 percent of the cardiac deaths in 
that State during pregnancy happen to be Black women; a State 
that historically has disenfranchised Black people, first 
through enslavement and forced reproduction of Black women; and 
that even after the 13th Amendment enacted so many Jim Crow era 
laws that did not get dismantled until the mid-part of the last 
century; and a State that has tried with all its might to 
continue to suppress the right of Black people to vote.
    Fannie Lou Hamer famously talked about being beaten after 
she attempted to vote, where in the best-case scenarios Black 
people had to guess how many bubbles on a bar of soap and 
jellybeans in a jar to be able to vote.
    This is why this is not just Jim Crow, this is the new Jane 
Crow. It fails to pay any attention to the lives, historically 
or in the present, of Black women. That is the part of this 
that is absolutely shameful.
    Mr. Jones. Thank you for that.
    The nation that my Republican colleagues want is 
terrifying. A handful of unelected, unaccountable, far-right 
Supreme Court justices encouraging States to seize control of 
the bodies and decision-making power of women across America. 
Politicians forcing women to give birth. The government 
imprisoning patients and their doctors.
    Apparently, to my Republican colleagues this is what 
democracy looks like. I would submit that the American people 
know better. That is not democracy; that is servitude.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Fitzgerald.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the 
Witnesses today.
    Over the past year-and-a-half we have watched President 
Biden and the Democrats continually push an anti-life agenda. 
First, they gutted the Hyde Amendment, longstanding provision 
of appropriations bills that prevents taxpayer funding for 
abortions, and that saved an estimated two million lives.
    Then the Biden Administration's Department of Health and 
Human Services changed their rules to essentially require 
healthcare providers to perform abortions, despite any moral 
objections they may have.
    They have prevented the House from voting on commonsense 
pieces of legislation, such as Born Alive Abortion Survivors 
Protection Act. This bill would ensure that babies who survive 
abortions are provided with medical care.
    Finally, my Democrat colleagues passed a radical bill that 
removed existing limits on abortion and allows abortion on 
demand, no matter the age of the baby.
    The party who once claimed that they wanted abortion to be 
``safe, legal, and rare,'' now stands for abortion on demand up 
until birth, and funded by taxpayers.
    Last week, I joined my colleagues in the Wisconsin 
Republican Delegation in sending a letter to Attorney General 
Garland, calling on him to investigate the arson at the Family 
Action Office in Madison, of which my colleague Mr. Tiffany 
spoke about earlier. We need to make sure that we prevent 
similar attacks in the future.
    Rather than focusing on diffusing threats against Americans 
for their political beliefs, the Department has in the last 17 
months been silent on, or encouraged further, partisan 
targeting.
    I myself will always push back on their anti-life stances 
with a clear and strong message of opposition. I have as a 
State legislator for 27 years. I believe that every human life 
is precious and should be protected at every stage.
    If the leaked Supreme Court opinion ends up being the final 
product and overturns Roe v. Wade, it would be a fantastic 
victory for life and for the babies. The pro-life movement has 
spent decades working on this movement. This is not a complete 
nationwide ban on abortion. Like I said, I passed hundreds of 
bills, pro-life bills, at the State level.
    Elected officials, rather than unelected judges, will set 
abortion policy based on where consensus is found. Babies in 
the womb deserve legal protection and possess the basic human 
right to life. Unborn children at six weeks have a heartbeat, 
and by 15 weeks can feel pain, and have human features such as 
nose, lips, and eyebrows.
    Even if States choose to ban abortions with limited to no 
exceptions, the value of human life is not determined by the 
circumstances of his or her conception. Abortions carried out 
following these horrific crimes only compound the crisis that 
the mother has endured. Abortion advances a cycle of violence 
forward on yet another innocent victim. There are two lives at 
stake here, not one.
    The pro-life movement has always been committed to serving 
mothers and children with pregnancy care centers and 
alternatives to abortion programs.
    Ms. Foster, even some of the most liberal constitutional 
scholars, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have been critical of 
Roe's shaky, if not nonexistent constitutional standing. Can 
you discuss some of the constitutional errors the Supreme Court 
made in the Roe and Casey cases, and how those may be corrected 
in the Dobbs case?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely.
    As of July 2021, we at Americans United For Life have 
compiled more than 38 pages of scholarly criticism of Roe from 
the left and the right, explaining just how un-moored in the 
Constitution Roe and Casey are.
    We do hope that Dobbs will be the case that Casey wasn't, 
that it will correct the errors of not finding a right to life 
in the Constitution, of course, but also finding this purported 
right to abortion that in the decades since even the Court 
hasn't been able to quite get grasp of, Right?
    As it changed the test in the framework from Roe to Casey, 
and then even in the last few years with Hellerstedt and June 
Medical, the undue burden standard has been, has been up in the 
air as it has gotten pushed back and forth in the court.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Lieu.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chair Nadler.
    I listened carefully to the stories of the Witnesses today. 
Thank you for your time and effort presenting.
    I heard Ms. Arrambide, and Dr. Robinson, and Ms. Foster, 
your experiences. They are all different. That is a point, 
isn't it? All women have different experiences.
    Two of you gave different testimony. Because Dr. Robinson 
and Ms. Arrambide, you didn't try to impose your experience on 
anybody else. You don't tell women to get an abortion. You 
don't tell them not to get an abortion. You leave that 
emotional, difficult, searing, nuanced, complicated, life-
changing decision to the woman, to her family, to her God, and 
to her doctor.
    MAGA Republicans want to criminalize abortion. They want to 
take that decision away from American people. They want to put 
women in jail for making that decision. They want to put 
doctors in jail for helping women get an abortion. They want to 
help--anyone who wants to help a woman to get an abortion in 
Texas can be sued by their neighbor. This is a radical agenda.
    Really, the question today is not, well, I don't know, when 
does life begin? It is who makes that decision? Do you want 
MAGA politicians making that decision, or do you want the woman 
to make that decision in consultation with her faith, her 
doctor, and her family?
    At conception, 12 hours later it is still a single cell. Is 
that a human being? Is that a person? Thirty hours later it 
splits into two cells. Is that a human being? Is that a person? 
Fourty-five hours later it splits into four cells.
    Now, some women will decide that is a person and carry the 
pregnancy to term. Some will not. That should be the decision 
of the woman with her faith, family, and doctor, not for MAGA 
politicians.
    That is really the issue here: Whose decision is this? Is 
it government or is it the woman's decision in consultation 
with her doctor, faith, and God?
    I submit that it is the woman's decision because that is 
what the American public overwhelmingly believes. Only 28 
percent support overturning Roe v. Wade.
    I would like to now turn to the legal issues in Roe v. 
Wade, specifically legal issues that one of the Supreme Court 
justices in their confirmation hearings misled the American 
public.
    If you look at the draft opinion, the draft opinion says 
Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.
    So, Professor Goodwin, my question to you, are the five 
conservative Supreme Court justices that purportedly sign on to 
this draft opinion, did any of them say Roe was egregiously 
wrong from the start in their confirmation hearing?
    Ms. Goodwin. No, they did not.
    Mr. Lieu. In fact, what did Justice Alito say? That is what 
he said, Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme 
Court. That is what he said.
    Do you remember Justice Gorsuch, Professor Goodwin, saying 
that Roe was egregiously wrong from the start?
    Ms. Goodwin. No.
    Mr. Lieu. No.
    Ms. Goodwin. I do not. They did not, he did not say that.
    Mr. Lieu. In fact, this is actually what Justice Gorsuch 
said in his confirmation hearing under oath. He said,

        I will tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a 
        precedent of the United States Supreme Court. A good judge will 
        consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, 
        worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

    Professor Goodwin, do you remember Brett Kavanaugh saying 
Roe was egregiously wrong from the start?
    Ms. Goodwin. No. He did not.
    Mr. Lieu. In fact, this is what Brett Kavanaugh said under 
oath to the American people and to the U.S. Senate. He said,

        It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled to 
        respect under principles of stare decisis. The Supreme Court 
        has recognized the right to abortion since the 1970 Roe v. Wade 
        case. It has reaffirmed it many times.

    Multiple conservative Supreme Court justices misled the 
American people to get power, to get confirmed. Now, you are 
going to have this radical decision imposed on the American 
people, taking away that very complicated, emotional, searing, 
nuanced decision from the American people.
    We will not let that stand.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Neguse?
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing 
today.
    As we near the conclusion of this hearing, I think it would 
be helpful to try to recenter the conversation on what I 
believe is the fundamental issue that we are discussing today, 
which is really freedom--the freedom for a woman to make her 
own healthcare decisions. That freedom is really at the core 
issue of what we are discussing today.
    My friends on the other side of the aisle like to say that 
there is too much government regulation when it comes to public 
health measures, and yet, apparently, would like to regulate 
intimate decisions like pregnancy and deprive women of the 
freedom to make their own healthcare decisions--as my 
colleague, Representative Stanton said, the constitutional 
right to make an informed medical decision. Unfortunately, many 
Republicans have made it quite clear that, when it comes to 
health and medical decisions, their beliefs matter more than 
the families that they claim to represent.
    I don't want to repeat much of what--this is a long 
hearing, of course, and a robust debate. I thank all the 
Witnesses for their testimony today. I don't want to 
necessarily repeat the comments of my colleagues.
    Perhaps Mr. Johnson will engage me in a brief colloquy, as 
he hasn't had an opportunity to talk in quite some time.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
    Mr. Neguse. I guess the question I have, my understanding--
and obviously, the leaked opinion is not--we don't know whether 
or not that is a final opinion or not. My understanding of your 
position is that you are supportive of a holding that enables 
the States to make determinations as to abortion regulations. 
Is that--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is right. That was the case 
before Roe and before 1973, that is right.
    Mr. Neguse. Given that, would you be supportive of a 
Federal abortion ban?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. There is no right to abortion in 
the Constitution. It is not in the text, the structure, or the 
original meaning, intent, as the draft opinion points out very 
well. So, when a right, as you well know, when a right is not 
included in the Constitution, the decision, the question falls 
to the people. So, they should make that decision at the 
closest level possible, through their elected representatives. 
The States have that ability and did so before Roe, and that is 
where it will happen again.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I guess, what does that mean? Does that 
mean yes or no on the Federal abortion ban?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, there will be a lot of 
discussion about that, but no one has drawn that conclusion. I 
think, like in my State, in Louisiana, when Roe is overturned, 
we become a 100 percent pro-life State because we did the heavy 
work when I was in the legislature there, put it in the State 
statutes. We have a trigger clause. We admitted our 
constitution in 2020. So, my State and I think 18 others will 
have that decision resolved, and then, there will be a very 
robust debate in the other States. We will see what happens.
    Mr. Neguse. I appreciate your answer. I would say, while I 
appreciate your articulation of Louisiana's construction of 
their abortion regulations, your colleagues, many of your 
colleagues on your side of the aisle have been much more 
forward in acknowledging that they would like to see a Federal 
abortion ban.
    Maybe Dr. Robinson can help me on this point. Because I 
think part of what is obfuscated much of this debate is this 
discussion that the potential Dobbs decision would, 
essentially, leave this matter to the States, which obscures 
the reality that many Republicans, including Senator McConnell, 
Leader McConnell in the Senate, have left the door open to a 
potential Federal ban on abortion.
    I guess, Dr. Robinson, maybe you can expound a bit about 
what that would mean for States like Colorado. As you may be 
aware, I represent the State of Colorado. In Colorado, we have 
codified via State statute the right, the freedom to be able to 
make these healthcare decisions, as well as within the State 
constitution.
    It seems pretty clear to me--I would be interested in your 
thoughts--that this is not a matter that ultimately my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have any intent of 
leaving to the States.
    Dr. Robinson. From all the legislation that has been passed 
over the last several years since I became a provider, it looks 
like it is very clear that the direction that they are trying 
to lead us in is for there to be no access to abortion care.
    I am not a legal scholar. So, as legislation passes, we 
have to constantly rely on attorneys who can give us guidance 
about how we can continue to care for patients. So, my 
understanding is that the States that have protections in place 
for abortion care, then they will be overwhelmed with patients 
who are able to leave their communities to access care. In a 
State like my own in Alabama, then people will no longer have 
access to that care.
    Mr. Neguse. I think that is correct. Of course, also, if, 
in fact, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who 
believe that a Federal abortion ban should be enacted at the 
Federal level ultimately gain power of the Federal government, 
then that, of course, would be potentially a ban nationwide.
    I am running out of time. I will just briefly say to Dr. 
Robinson, I also wanted to ask you about Black maternal health. 
The reality in the United States, as you know, we have the 
highest maternal mortality rate compared with other wealthy 
industrialized countries. In addition, in particular, when it 
comes to Black women, the statistics in women of color are even 
worse.
    You, of course, are a doctor, and I know you are an expert 
in this area. I wonder if you might have any just final words 
or thoughts of wisdom as to what the Congress can do with 
respect to improving maternal health outcomes.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. The Witness 
may answer the question.
    Dr. Robinson. Well, the things that we could do is that I 
encourage you to pass legislation that will protect access to 
abortion care; continue to center the people, the providers who 
need access to this care, and to just look at ways that we can 
expand access to healthcare, and not looking at--including 
reducing restrictions on insurance coverages for people to 
access the care that they need.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Ms. Dean?
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding this 
important hearing on an extraordinary question of our time.
    I have to thank all the Witnesses for being here, for 
offering your heartfelt expertise and experience, and heartfelt 
thoughts and courage.
    I am thinking a lot about our past, present, and future and 
paraphrasing something you are going to all be familiar with.

        First, they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because 
        I'm not Jewish. Then, they came for the immigrants, and I did 
        not speak out because I was not an immigrant. Then, they came 
        for Black people and I did not speak out because I'm not Black. 
        Then, they came for my daughters, my granddaughters, and me, 
        and there was no one left to speak for us.

    Of course, I am paraphrasing Pastor Niemoller, 1946, 
against the Nazi thinking and values. Yet, the argument applies 
today. There are so many things that Americans are at risk of 
losing because people are not speaking out.
    Republicans are targeting our right to privacy, the right 
to control our bodies, and it is not a new story. Let me tell 
you a story I have told often because I thought it was a relic, 
a sad relic, of the past.
    My mother-in-law did not know her own mother. She was the 
youngest of six children, born in 1930 Scranton, Catholic 
Scranton. Her mother became pregnant with a seventh child, and 
the doctors knew that the child would be stillborn and warned 
that the mother would likely die in childbirth. It was 1930s 
Scranton. The family had no choice. The mother took the 
stillborn baby to term. Of course, the baby was stillborn, and 
the mother died, orphaning six children.
    My mother-in-law never knew her own mother. She told that 
story so that it would never happen again, to warn that it must 
never happen again.
    Dr. Robinson, would it be possible that those stories of 
the past would become our future?
    Dr. Robinson. It seems quite plausible that may be the 
case.
    Ms. Dean. It scares me, I have to admit to you.
    What are some of the risks that women suffer right now in 
the not post-Roe world, although in Texas we are post-Roe in 
many ways? What are the risks right now that you are seeing in 
your practice?
    Dr. Robinson. One of the things that I have experienced is 
patients who have what we call an inevitable abortion. It is 
where a patient is pregnant; the cervix is open. The patient is 
having bleeding, but there is still cardiac activity or there 
is still the heartbeat of the fetus. There is difficulty in our 
hospital system with proceeding with care with those patients 
because there is still cardiac activity with the fetus. So, in 
those instances, we have mothers who their lives are put at 
risk in that situation.
    I have experienced it with a patient of my own, where we 
needed to start medication to expedite delivery, and there was 
refusal and a lot of back-and-forth before we could get 
administrative approval to move on with the care that the 
patient needed.
    That is one of the reasons why I think that we really need 
to look at the decision that we are making. The other side has 
highlighted all these dark ideas about what happens with 
abortion care, and they are looking at a very few examples of 
sometimes what sounds like it could possibly be bad medicine. 
Like I said, there is already legislation, there are already 
laws in place for that, and we should just focus on enforcing 
those laws, but not tie the hands of patients and providers who 
really just want to provide good care for their patients.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you for that.
    For those who say, ``My State is going to be all pro-
life,'' I would argue with that characterization. I would say 
the State would become all pro-choice, the government's choice, 
not a woman's choice, not an individual's choice to 
reproductive freedom.
    I worry for my daughter--I have three sons--I worry for my 
daughters-in-law. I worry for my three granddaughters for their 
future, because what their future will be is not what I 
enjoyed--the chance for me to plan, alongside my husband, when 
we would have children; how many we would have; what we would 
be able to do with our own independent freedom, and a most 
personal decision, when and whether to have children.
    Ms. Arrambide, I thank you so much for having this 
conversation with us. Your courage is remarkable, and you leave 
here with your dignity intact, even though some of these 
conversations didn't leave with their dignity intact.
    Finally, Ms. Glenn Foster, I have compassion for you, for 
your continued sadness, your regret over your abortion. Thank 
you for sharing that story with us. It is something we all need 
to think about, but you had a choice. I am sorry you regret 
your choice. No one forced you to do what you did. You had the 
right to make a choice. Now, you work to impose your regret as 
the law of the land, banning everyone else's choice.
    Just to warn you--this is a comment only--this is not how 
our rights work. This is not how our Constitution works. Your 
regret is not to become a ban and the law of the land.
    I thank you and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Ms. Ross?
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thanks to all the Witnesses for testifying today.
    We are here today to discuss one of the greatest threats to 
women and family that our country has seen in 50 years. If it 
holds, the Supreme Court's draft opinion overruling Roe will, 
effectively, allow States to ban abortion entirely. Denial of 
necessary care, including abortion, can have profound and 
lasting impacts on people's lives.
    Denial of access to abortion will be particularly harmful 
to women who already face disparate access to all sorts of 
kinds of care, including people of color, people with 
disabilities, people in rural areas in my State of North 
Carolina, and low-income people.
    In States like mine, we have not expanded Medicaid for more 
than half a million people. We already see significant 
disparities in who can access care and corresponding 
disparities in health outcomes. Women who fall into the 
Medicaid gap in nonexpansion States like North Carolina are 
frequently unable to access contraception; unable to get 
prenatal care and delayed in accessing care during their 
pregnancies.
    Many of these same States are also likely to enact severe 
abortion restrictions, if Roe is overturned. We know that 
forced pregnancy hurts women, threatens our physical and mental 
health, and restricts our economic possibilities.
    However, the Republicans on this Committee have shown that 
they don't really care about these realities or these women. I 
hope that they demonstrate greater capacity for understanding 
when they realize that this decision will have ripple effects 
that harm families and children by locking people into poverty 
and further limiting access to healthcare.
    My first question is for Professor Goodwin. Please explain 
how low-income and people of color will be prosecuted 
disproportionately and face greater legal risks for violating 
anti-abortion laws compared to those who are White and wealthy.
    Ms. Goodwin. Well, individuals who have greater means will 
be able to afford childcare, afford to be able to travel out of 
State, be able to have a hotel out of State, the ability to be 
able to get healthcare services and abortion care out of State. 
For individuals who happen to be poor and people of color, they 
are already subject to disproportionate police surveillance and 
surveillance by other people in society. This will only be 
inflamed to an even greater extent, and when abortion access is 
not available in their State, that will result in high rates of 
maternal mortality, which we already see, and also, maternal 
morbidity. These are people who stand the risk of being 
reported by medical professionals who are pressured right now 
to report on their patients who have miscarriages and 
stillbirths. That is already occurring in the United States, 
given this anti-abortion backdrop.
    Ms. Ross. Dr. Robinson, I saw you nodding when I talked 
about not having Medicaid expansion. I know that you practice 
medicine in a State that has not expanded Medicaid. Could you 
tell us what that failure has done to the health of women who 
are either seeking to have a child or may not be ready to have 
a child?
    Dr. Robinson. Thank you.
    Yes, I, too, live in a State that did not accept Medicaid 
expansion. So, as I said in my testimony, in Alabama the 
maternal mortality rate is five times more than that of our 
White counterpart, and that is higher than the national 
average. I think this directly corresponds to access to quality 
healthcare. So, with that, without taking Medicaid expansion, 
then my people are being harmed by this.
    Ms. Ross. Do you see a hypocrisy between people who would 
deny access to abortion care at the same time they are denying 
access to healthcare?
    Dr. Robinson. Absolutely.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, briefly, could we 
allow Ms. Glenn Foster to reply briefly to the very personal 
comments Ms. Dean directed to her.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady has yielded back.
    Ms. Bush?
    Ms. Bush. I thank you, Chair Nadler, for swiftly convening 
today's hearing.
    I am a proud mother of two beautiful children. I am also a 
person who terminated two unexpected pregnancies. I am here to 
express my unwavering support for anyone who has ever decided 
to terminate a pregnancy.
    Whether a person is seeking abortion care because they were 
raped, the condom broke, other birth control failed, they 
didn't have a reliable partner, or couldn't afford a baby, 
everyone needs accessible options to have an option where they 
live.
    When I was 17 years old, I was raped. Weeks later, I found 
out I was pregnant. Without the protections afforded to me by 
Roe v. Wade, I would have been forced to birth a human being 
that I could not take care of, and the father would have been 
my rapist.
    The emotional devastation of this encounter was traumatic. 
I didn't know if it was my fault. I didn't know what to do. Did 
I do something wrong? I hadn't consented, but I blamed myself. 
The stress of possibly having a child at 18 was more than I 
could bear.
    It took a full two weeks' worth of pay for me to afford an 
abortion--money that I sorely needed for bills for food, for my 
education. For physical, for spiritual, and financial reasons, 
I knew that this was not the right time for me to bring a life 
into this world.
    Ms. Arrambide, what has SB 8 and other abortion bans in 
Texas meant for low-income people of color who need abortions?
    Ms. Arrambide. Thank you for your question.
    I think like in the time before Roe, the people most 
impacted, especially in Texas, are the most marginalized 
communities. We are talking about Black communities, people of 
color, indigenous communities, trans and nonbinary people, 
people in rural communities, people that live on the fringes of 
society, the immigrants, the undocumented people. Their access 
to care has been decimated.
    For the rest of the people that aren't afraid to seek 
abortion care because the laws are so confusing or they might 
risk being sued, those people have had to travel, on average, 
about 1,300 miles, sometimes as far as 2,400 miles, to access 
care that should be available within their community. That 
affects so many people in Texas and so many people we love.
    We are talking about a State that has not expanded 
Medicaid. We are talking about a State that cut family 
planning; that has decimated any sort of support system for 
these families and people. Abortion has become practically 
inaccessible for the majority.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you for those critical insights.
    I remember when I earned around $7 an hour. Baby formula 
cost around $12 a can. I received formula through WIC, but that 
only lasted about two and a half weeks out of the month. That 
was back around 2000.
    Over two decades later, the cost of baby formula has 
increased to anywhere between--what? --$17 and $22. Yet, the 
Federal minimum wage hasn't changed much since 2009, and it is 
just $7.25. So, poverty is expensive, especially in a society 
that fails to invest in living wages and a strong social safety 
net.
    So, here is my message for anyone trying to take away a 
person's bodily autonomy: If you are for life, you will support 
universal paid leave. If you are for life, you would support 
livable wages. If you are for life, you would support 
affordable childcare, affordable housing, and the expansion of 
WIC, TANF, and SNAP programs. If you are for life, you would 
support policies to help children and families meet their 
material needs. You would support the constitutional right to 
abortion. Abortion care is healthcare. Let me say that again: 
Abortion care is healthcare, and it is imperative that we 
protect that right for everyone--everyone meaning all, 
everyone.
    Thank you and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    This concludes today's hearing.
    We thank all the Witnesses for participating.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the Witnesses 
or additional materials for the record.
    Without objection--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, really quick before 
you adjourn, we are going to have a statement entered into the 
record, Ms. Glenn Foster's response to what I thought was an ad 
hominem attack by Ms. Dean.
    Chair Nadler. Fine.
    [The information follows:]



      

                        MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA

                             FOR THE RECORD

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

    Video of Ms. Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO, 
Americans United for Life, for the record is available at the 
following link:


https://www1.cbn.com/content/i-had-four-people-holding-me-down-woman-
recounts-horror-forced-abortion

    Chair Nadler. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:59 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

      

                                APPENDIX

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
                                [all]