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




WHAT'S NEXT: THE THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS IN A POST-ROE WORLD

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               ----------                              

                        THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2022

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. 117-73

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary



                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


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








   WHAT'S NEXT: THE THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS IN A POST-ROE WORLD

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-73

                               __________

         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

48-659                    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

                              ----------                              

                        Thursday, July 14, 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...............................     3

                               WITNESSES

Ms. Melissa Murray, Frederick I. and Grace Stokes Professor of 
  Law; Faculty Director, Birnbaum Women's Leadership Network; New 
  York University School of Law
  Oral Testimony.................................................     8
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    10
Ms. Sarah Warbelow, Legal Director, Human Rights Campaign
  Oral Testimony.................................................    18
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    20
Ms. Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO, Americans United 
  for Life
  Oral Testimony.................................................    31
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    33
Mr. Jim Obergefell, Plaintiff in Obergefell v. Hodges
  Oral Testimony.................................................    40
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    42

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

A report entitled, ``Freedom in the World 2022: United States,'' 
  Freedom House, submitted by the Honorable David Cicilline, a 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  Rhode Island, for the record...................................    66
An article entitled, ``What conservative justices said about Roe 
  at their confirmation hearings,'' Washington Post, submitted by 
  the Honorable Mike Johnson, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Louisiana, for the record..........   116
A report entitled, ``Designed to Deceive: A Study of the Crisis 
  Pregnancy Center Industry in Nine States,'' The Alliance: State 
  Advocates for Women's Rights and Gender Equality, submitted by 
  the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record...   126
Materials submitted by the Honorable Eric Swalwell, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, 
  for the record
  A tweet from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, July 12, 2022....................   202
  An article entitled, ``Correcting the Record on a Rape Case,'' 
    Wall Street Journal..........................................   203
A report entitled, ``2021 Violence and Disruption Statistics,'' 
  National Abortion Federation, submitted by the Honorable Sylvia 
  Garcia, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the 
  State of Texas, for the record.................................   210
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for 
  the record
  A statement from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of 
    the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas.......   240
  An article entitled, ``Texas woman, 26, charged with murder 
    over `self-induced abortion,' '' The Guardian................   241
  An article entitled, ``Texas abortion law strains clinics: 
    `Exactly what we feared,' '' AP News.........................   245
  An article entitled, ``Doctors' worst fears about the Texas 
    abortion law are coming true,'' GPB News.....................   249

                                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 letter from Ada D. Stewart, Board Chair, American Academy of 
    Family Physicians............................................   266
  A letter from Katherine Rhodes Henderson, Interim President and 
    CEO, Interfaith Alliance Foundation..........................   280
Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for the 
  record
  A quote from the Honorable Jamie Raskin, a Member of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland........   282
  An article entitled, ``Red states with abortion bans could 
    `lose economic edge,' warns New York Times,'' Fox News.......   283
  An article entitled, ``Justice Department announces 
    Reproductive Rights Task Force,'' CNN........................   286
  A report entitled, ``Gestational Limits on Abortion in the 
    United States Compared to International Norms,'' Charlotte 
    Lozier Institute.............................................   288
  An article entitled, ``Virginia governor faces backlash over 
    comments supporting late-term abortion bill,'' CNN...........   293
  An article entitled, ``Elizabeth Warren Calls To `Shut Down' 
    Crisis Pregnancy Centers Amid Pro-Abortion Attacks,'' Daily 
    Caller.......................................................   296
  An article entitled, ``NY Times op-ed tells Democrats to 
    `embrace the politics of fear' on abortion: `Party needs to 
    scare voters,' '' The New York Times.........................   303
  A report entitled, ``Mississippi's 15-Week Gestational Limit on 
    Abortion is Mainstream Compared to European Laws,'' Charlotte 
    Lozier Institute.............................................   309
  An article entitled, ``What are the abortion time limits in EU 
    countries?'' RightToLife.....................................   312
  An article entitled, ``Abortion Laws Around the World,'' The 
    New York Times...............................................   315
  An article entitled, ``Ohio Right to Life says offices targeted 
    twice by pro-abortion vandals with rocks, spray paint,'' Fox 
    News.........................................................   318
  An article entitled, ``Democrats Launch Ads In Lifestyle Mags 
    In All Out Push For Abortion,'' Daily Caller.................   322
  An article entitled, ``Summer of Rage: Tracking Attacks on 
    Pregnancy Centers & Pro-Life Groups,'' CatholicVote..........   328
  An article entitled, ``Attacks on Churches, Pro-Life Pregnancy 
    Centers Continue,'' National Catholic Register...............   333
  An article entitled, ``Pastor: Vandalism was in response to Roe 
    v. Wade decision,'' Mohave Daily News........................   335







 
   WHAT'S NEXT: THE THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS IN A POST-ROE WORLD

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, July 14, 2022

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:04 a.m., in Room 
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair 
of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Nadler, Jackson Lee, 
Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Jeffries, Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, 
Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse, McBath, 
Dean, Escobar, Jones, Ross, Bush, Jordan, Chabot, Gohmert, 
Issa, Buck, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, 
Steube, Tiffany, Massie, Bishop, Fischbach, 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; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; 
Gabriel Barnett, Professional Staff Member; Casey Lee, Staff 
Assistant; Merrick Nelson, Digital Director; James Park, Chief 
Counsel for Constitution; Matt Morgan, Counsel for 
Constitution; Agbeko Petty, Counsel for Constitution; Will 
Emmons, Professional Staff Member/Legislative Aide for 
Constitution; Ella Yates, Minority Member Services Director; 
Betsy Ferguson, Minority Senior Counsel; Caroline Nabity, 
Minority Senior 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, ``What's Next: The 
Threat to Individual Freedoms in a Post-Roe World.''
    Before we begin, I would like to remind Members that we 
have established an email address and distribution list 
dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, or other written 
materials that Members might want to offer as part of today's 
hearing. 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 material to Members 
and staff as quickly as we can.
    Before we start, I would like to warn the Members that 
because we have votes at 12:30. I am going to have a very tight 
gavel. Five minutes will mean five minutes on the dot.
    I will now recognize myself in opening statement.
    What is the meaning of freedom in America in 2022? This is 
the question that we as a society must confront today in the 
wake of the Supreme Court's appalling decision in Dobbs v. 
Jackson Women's Health Organization, which eviscerated the 
constitutional right to abortion and laid the groundwork for a 
radical reshaping of our fundamental liberties.
    As we reckon with the consequences of this decision for 
women's health and individual liberty, we must also consider 
which other constitutional protections, such as the right to 
contraception, the right to marry whomever we choose, and the 
fundamental right to privacy, may also fall by the wayside if 
the current Supreme Court majority continues down this 
dangerous path.
    By overturning 50 years of precedent in Roe v. Wade and 
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court denied the right of 
women to equality, bodily autonomy, and essential healthcare, 
rights that they have justly relied on to order their lives for 
almost a half century. In doing so, the Court removed from 
individuals the power to decide the fundamental question of 
whether to carry or terminate a pregnancy and, instead, gave 
that power to the government.
    Making decisions about when and how to start a family is 
central to women's lives. It is the very essence of what it 
means to be secure in one's bodily autonomy and basic human 
dignity, which are prerequisites for freedom. In Dobbs, the 
Court's majority ignored these fundamental principles and, 
instead, turned back the clock 50 years.
    Make no mistake. Overturning Roe was just the start. 
Republicans and anti-abortion forces are determined to enact a 
nationwide ban on abortion the next time they control the 
political branches of the Federal government. You don't have to 
take my word for it. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell 
made it clear that ``it's possible'' that a Republican-
controlled Congress would enact such a ban. The Washington Post 
reported that ``leading anti-abortion groups and their allies 
in Congress have been meeting behind the scenes to plan a 
national strategy, including a push for a strict nationwide ban 
if Republicans retake power in Washington.''
    The impact of Dobbs may be even broader than undermining 
abortion access. For much of the last two generations, 
Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch have 
acted, even if with some considerable backsliding at times, to 
protect and, in some cases, to expand guarantees for personal 
liberty and autonomy against government interference. These 
constitutional and legal guarantees of personal liberty, in 
turn, reflected American society's move toward an ever more 
expansive view of individual freedom.
    Today, however, a radical right-wing majority on the 
Supreme Court seeks to challenge the broad arc of our nation's 
history, an arc that had been bending towards greater freedom 
and justice for all. This majority made up of conservative 
judicial activists has barely tried to hide its aim of 
eviscerating many of the protections for personal liberty that 
we as a society had come to believe would remain in place.
    Indeed, on the right to abortion, a decisive majority of 
Americans believe that the Court was wrong to overturn Roe's 
constitutional guarantee for abortion access. The Court has 
defied the will of the American majority and in doing so has 
undermined its own legitimacy in their eyes.
    While Justice Alito specifically claimed that Dobbs was 
limited to abortion and had no effect on other fundamental 
rights, I find that assurance cold comfort. The Court's 
reasoning in Dobbs, if taken to its logical extent, could serve 
as a roadmap for this conservative majority to eviscerate in 
future cases other fundamental rights premised on the right to 
privacy and the doctrine of substantive due process more 
generally.
    According to this Supreme Court majority's limited 
conception of ordered liberty, our understanding of the 
fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution should be 
frozen in amber at the time the Constitution and the 14th 
Amendment were ratified, periods in history when women and 
minorities were largely locked out of public life and American 
democracy.
    Moreover, Justice Thomas' concurrence is the proverbial 
canary in the coal mine. There, Justice Thomas said out loud 
what the rest of the Court's majority sought to keep quiet, 
that under the reasoning of the Dobbs decision, other 
fundamental rights should be vulnerable to future attack. By 
calling on the Court to reconsider and overturn all its 
substantive due process jurisprudence, including specifically 
precedents recognizing constitutional protections for 
contraception, intimate relations, and marriage equality, 
Justice Thomas practically invited legal challenges to these 
and other rights.
    That said, these other fundamental rights premised on the 
right to privacy, the doctrinal foundation for Roe and Casey, 
remain the law of the land. This includes the landmark 
decisions that Justice Thomas explicitly targeted.
    What the example of the Dobbs decision teaches us is that 
we cannot be complacent or allow ourselves to be left 
scrambling to respond after worst-case scenarios have come to 
fruition if we want to secure fundamental rights for all 
Americans. This is true especially in the face of a determined 
onslaught by the conservative legal movement and its allies on 
the Court.
    To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our 
posterity, as our Constitution's preamble States, we must 
remain vigilant against forces hostile to that liberty, 
including, unfortunately, the current majority on the Supreme 
Court. We should also consider legislative measures that will 
secure rights that the Constitution currently guarantees, no 
matter what may happen in the future.
    I thank our witnesses for their participation in today's 
hearing. I look forward to their testimony. I now recognize the 
Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from 
Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Here is what the Court 
said:

        To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or 
        mischaracterized, we emphasize, 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 
precedents that do not concern abortion. The Court also said 
this, and this is critical:

        We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution 
        makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly 
        protected by any constitutional provision. It is time to heed 
        the Constitution and return the issue to the people's elected 
        representatives.

    Those statements are what bother the left. Their beef is 
with the Constitution. The Court was really clear. The 
Constitution means what it says.
    The left and Democratic Party are so pro-abortion that 
tomorrow they are going to pass legislation here in the House 
of Representatives that will allow the taking of an unborn 
child's life right up until their birthday. They are so pro-
abortion that they are willing to engage in all kinds of 
efforts to intimidate the highest court in our land.
    It started a while back when the Senate Majority Leader 
said this on the steps of the United States Supreme Court:

        I want to tell, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you 
        have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You 
        won't know what hit you if you go forward with these decisions.

    The intimidation of the Court continued when the Chair of 
this Committee 15 months ago introduced legislation to add not 
one, not two, not three, but four Associate Justices to the 
United States Supreme Court. The intimidation continued when 
this Committee and the left in a concerted effort targeted 
Justice Thomas and his wife, went after them--we had a hearing 
on it here in this Committee.
    Then, of course, the intimidation--something we have never 
seen, something that has never happened before, leak of a draft 
opinion by the Court. It never happened in the history of the 
country, so focused are they on going against the Constitution 
and having their pro-abortion agenda happen. Of course, after 
the leak, after their leak, there were protests at a justice's 
home in direct violation of a statute, 18 U.S.C. 1507.
    Of course, during, after the leak while the case is pending 
in front of the Court, this Committee, in a further effort to 
intimidate the Court, held a hearing on this subject matter 
pending before our highest court.
    During that time right after the leak, when all this 
protesting was going on at justices' homes, when Justice 
Barrett had her children's school put online, when the left put 
online where her family attends church on Sunday morning, the 
United States Senate passed legislation to give protection to 
justices' families. The Speaker of the House of Representatives 
held up that--they passed it unanimously. The Speaker of the 
House held up that legislation for four weeks, for four weeks.
    Guess what happened during that time? Guess what happened 
during that four weeks? We had something else that has never 
happened in the history of this country. We had an 
assassination attempt on a sitting justice of the United States 
Supreme Court. Stop and think about it for a second.
    We have a Justice Department that has failed to prosecute 
anyone with the statute that is directly on point when people 
are protesting at a justice's home trying to intimate, 
influence a decision pending before the Court, a Justice 
Department that refuses to do anything, a Justice Department 
that is now complicit in this attack by the left to intimidate 
the Court, complicit in going after a separate and equal branch 
of our government.
    I want to read something to you. It might take a while, but 
I want to read this. I think this is important, because this, 
these are attacks that have happened on crisis pregnancy 
centers and churches over the last ten weeks, ten weeks' time.

On May 3, 2022, individuals vandalized the Care Net Pregnancy Center in 
    Frederick, Maryland.
On May 5th, in Portland, Oregon, vandals smashed numerous windows, 
    spray-painted graffiti on the Southeast Portland Regional Resource 
    Center.
On May 7th, activists vandalized a crisis pregnancy center in Denton, 
    Texas.
On May 7th, Fort Collins, Colorado, activists painted on the doors of a 
    Catholic parish.
On May 8th, Mother's Day, individuals attempted to break into the 
    Oregon Right to Life office in Keizer, Oregon.
On May 8th, vandals spray-painted pro-abortion messages on the side of 
    a pro-life pregnancy center in Manassas, Virginia.
On May 8th, a pro-life non-profit center in Madison, Wisconsin was set 
    on fire and vandalized, and the words if abortions aren't safe, 
    then you aren't either were on the side of the building.
On May 13th, activists threatening, left threatening messages on the 
    front of the Alpha Pregnancy Center in Reistertown, Maryland.
On May 18th, vandals targeted a women's faith-based medical clinic in 
    Auburn, Alabama.
On May 25th, Lynnwood, Washington, pro-abortion activists smashed 
    windows, vandalized the Next Step Pregnancy Center, left a threat 
    on the outside of the building and graffiti if abortion isn't safe, 
    you aren't either.
On June 2nd, Anchorage, Alaska, a staff member at the Community 
    Pregnancy Center found nails placed facing upwards in cracks of the 
    parking lot and graffiti all over the building.
On June 2nd, Jane's Revenge claimed credit for an attack in which its 
    members broke windows and scrawled messages, including God loves 
    abortion, this is not safe, at the Agape Pregnancy Resource Center 
    in Des Moines, Iowa.
On June 3rd, the Capitol Hill Crisis Pregnancy Center was the target of 
    left-wing activists who threw red paint on the door, threw eggs at 
    the window, and spray-painted the building with Jane Says Revenge.
On June 6th, Asheville, North Carolina, vandals broke windows, left 
    graffiti on the Mountain Area Pregnancy Services building.
On June 7th, reports indicate that the group, Jane's Revenge, 
    firebombed a Compassionate Care Pro-Life Pregnancy Center in 
    Amherst, New York.
On June 10th, there was a fire at the Gresham Pregnancy Resource Center 
    in Gresham, Oregon.
On June 10th, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, vandals smashed windows and 
    put graffiti on the Hope Pregnancy Center.
On June 15th, Minneapolis, Minnesota, activists smashed the windows of 
    Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life's office.
On June 19th, Redford Township, Michigan, windows smashed at the 
    Pregnancy Counseling Center.
On June 22nd, Jackson, Michigan, vandals graffitied then smashed the 
    windows of the office of the Jackson Right to Life.
On June 24th, Pregnancy Resource Center of Salt Lake City was 
    vandalized within hours of the release of the Dobbs decision.
On June 24th, North Carolina, the GOP headquarters was spray-painted 
    with Jane's Revenge threat ``if abortion isn't safe, neither are 
    you.''
On June 24th, St. Anthony's Catholic Church in Renton, Seattle was 
    vandalized with authorities saying the suspect spray-painted 
    messages saying things that I can't say here in the Committee.
On June 25th, Lynchburg, Virginia, pro-abortion activists vandalized 
    the Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center.
On June 25th, St. Patrick's Catholic Church, Philadelphia was defaced 
    with abort the church spray-painted on the outside of the church.
On June 25th, Paso Robles, California, vandals broke the windows, spray 
    painted the walls of the Tree of Life Pregnancy Support Center.
On June 25th, rioters breached the Arizona Capitol writing against the 
    Dobbs decision overturning Roe.
On June 25th, Vermont State Capitol building was vandalized by 
    protestors who painted if abortions aren't safe, neither are you.
On June 25th, Cortez, Colorado, Heart to Heart Pregnancy Center was 
    defaced with pro-abortion graffiti.
On June 25th, Longmont, Colorado, vandals put graffiti and set fire to 
    the Life Choices Free Pregnancy Services.
On June 25th, Portland, Oregon, rioters vandalized Mother and Child 
    Education Center for the second time since the leaked Dobbs 
    decision.
On June 25th, Portland, Oregon, All Saints Catholic Church had graffiti 
    put on it.
On June 26th, Winter Haven, Florida, pro-abortion activists destroyed 
    security cameras, spray-painted the Life Choice Pregnancy Center 
    with all kinds of threatening messages.
On June 26th, Tallahassee, Florida, St. Phillips AME Church was 
    targeted.
On June 27th, Upper-West Side of New York, a militant pro-choice 
    network put graffiti, ``if abortions aren't safe, neither are 
    you,'' on the Ascension Roman Catholic Church.
On June 27th, Portland, Oregon, protestors and rioters targeted Hinson 
    Baptist Church.
On June 27th in Everett, Oregon--I am at 37.

    We have still have more. We have have 50 of these. Everett, 
Washington, attempted arson attack on the Two Hearts Pregnancy 
Center.

On June 27th, Bellevue, Washington, man caught on video smashing glass 
    windows, spray-painting messages all over St. Louise Catholic 
    Church.
On June 27th, Lynchburg, Virginia, pregnancy center was vandalized with 
    graffiti that included the phrase, ``if abortion ain't safe, you 
    ain't safe,'' I guess proving that people who do this aren't just 
    criminals. They have also failed English class.
On June 27th, A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic in Yuba City, 
    California had windows smashed.
On June 30th in Nashville, Tennessee, Molotov cocktail thrown through 
    the first-floor window of Hope Clinic for Women, a pregnancy 
    resource center.
On July 1st, St. Bernard Catholic Church, Madison, Wisconsin was 
    vandalized, messages put on the outside of the church that we can't 
    read here.
On July 5th, Kenmore, Washington Care Net of Puget Sound Center was 
    vandalized and burned. St. Paul, Minnesota,
On July 5th, Crisis Pregnancy Center was vandalized.
On July 5th, Hialeah, Florida, the Heartbeat of Miami Center was 
    vandalized with hate messages.
On July 8th, Worcester, Massachusetts, Clearway Clinic, a pro-life 
    pregnancy center.

    I have got three more, Mr. Chair--pregnancy center 
sustained smashed windows and two doors and three windows.

On July 8th, Worcester, Massachusetts, Problem Pregnancy, a crisis 
    pregnancy center, across the street from [inaudible] was hit with 
    paint.
On July 10th, Bethesda, Maryland, a pro-abortionist set fire to the 
    North Bethesda United Methodist Church.
In Bethesda, Maryland, rioters destroyed the headstones of Wildwood 
    Baptist Church on July 10th.
Finally, on July 10th, Bethesda, Maryland, St. Jane Frances de Chantal 
    Parish was broken into, set on fire. The pastor spoke about the 
    attack saying, last night our church was vandalized. People broke 
    in. They overturned statues. They tore down the Stations of the 
    Cross. They desecrated the tabernacle. They set the church on fire.

    The whirlwind that the Majority Leader talked about on the 
steps of the Supreme Court, the whirlwind he talked about, that 
he called for, this is that whirlwind. This is just in ten 
weeks, May 3rd through this past weekend. There are more that 
have happened since, in the last few days. Just in 10 weeks 
that all happened.
    We should be talking about that. We should be asking the 
Justice Department in front of the Judiciary Committee what are 
you doing about this sustained effort. It looks to me like 
domestic terrorist effort coordinated. It seems in so many ways 
because the message was so often the same on so many of these 
crisis pregnancy centers. That to me seems what we should be 
focused on. No, no, the Democrats want to talk about their 
radical pro-abortion agenda. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield 
back.
    Chair Nadler. Let me just say that no one condones arson or 
threats. There is a long history from extremists on both sides. 
Planned Parenthood centers for many years have been the subject 
of attacks. Abortion clinics have been the subject of attacks 
and even murder. The name of Dr. Barnett Slepian of Buffalo, 
New York, who was murdered because he was an abortion provider, 
comes to mind. So, these long lists, both sides can have these 
long lists. No one responsible condones any of it.
    I will now introduce today's Witnesses.
    Melissa Murray is the Frederick I. and Grace Stokes 
Professor of Law at New York University School of Law. Prior to 
joining the NYU faculty, she was on the faculty of the 
University of California Berkeley School of Law where she also 
served as interim dean. Previously, she clerked for Sonia 
Sotomayor, then of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 
Circuit, and Stefan Underhill of the U.S. Circuit Court for the 
District of Connecticut. Professor Murray received a B.A. from 
the University of Virginia and her J.D. from Yale Law School.
    Sarah Warbelow is the Legal Director for the Human Rights 
Campaign where she has served in a variety of roles since 2008. 
Before joining HRC, Ms. Warbelow served as the Program Manager 
for the American Association of University Women Foundation 
Legal Advocacy Fund. She is also an affiliated Professor at 
George Washington University and George Mason Law School. She 
received Bachelor's degrees from Michigan State University and 
both a Master's degree and a law degree from the University of 
Michigan.
    Catherine Glenn Foster is President and CEO of Americans 
United for Life. Previously, she spent seven years as 
litigation counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom. She then 
founded and managed a law practice and led Euthanasia 
Prevention Coalition USA as the Executive Director. Ms. Foster 
earned her B.A. from Berry College, a Master's degree from the 
University of South Florida, and a J.D. from Georgetown 
University Law Center.
    Jim Obergefell was the named plaintiff in the landmark 
marriage equality case Obergefell v. Hodges and is a public 
speaker and author on LGBTQ equality and civil rights issues. 
Previous careers include being a high school German teacher, 
corporate training, relationship manager, software education 
consultant, and real estate agent. He earned an undergraduate 
degree from the University of Cincinnati and attended graduate 
school at Bowling Green University.
    We welcome our distinguished Witnesses. We thank them for 
participating today.
    I will begin by swearing in our Witnesses. I ask that our 
Witnesses in person please rise and raise your right hand. I 
ask that our remote Witnesses please turn on 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 that 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 Witnesses appearing 
virtually, there is a timer on your screen to help you keep 
track of time.
    Professor Murray, you may begin.

                  STATEMENT OF MELISSA MURRAY

    Ms. Murray. Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, thank you 
very much for this opportunity to appear before you in this 
hearing on the imminent threat to individual freedoms in a 
post-Roe world.
    My name is Melissa Murray. I am the Frederick I. and Grace 
Stokes Professor of Law at New York University School of Law 
where I teach constitutional law, family law, and reproductive 
rights and justice and serve as the faculty Director of the 
Birnbaum Women's Leadership Network. Prior to my appointment at 
NYU, I was a faculty member at the University of California, 
Berkeley, where I served for 12 years and was also the interim 
dean of the law school.
    The 14th Amendment guarantees all of us liberty and 
equality. To understand the full extent of the amendment's 
protections, it is necessary to appreciate the concerns that 
animated its drafting and ratification. Proposed in the wake of 
the Civil War, the reconstruction amendments were consciously 
drafted and ratified for the express purpose of abolishing and 
repudiating slavery and its indicia. Accordingly, the 13th 
Amendment abolished slavery. The 15th Amendment enfranchised 
Black men and introduced them to the political community as 
equals.
    Fourteenth Amendment was intended to repudiate the legal 
and cultural conditions that distinguished slavery from 
freedom, including the absence of bodily autonomy and control 
over procreation, the absence of family integrity and parental 
rights over children, and the ineligibility for civil marriage. 
Accordingly, the 14th Amendment did more than insist on the 
equality and citizenship of the formerly enslaved. Implicit in 
its understanding of liberty was the repudiation and 
eradication of these hallmark conditions of slavery. The right 
to abortion recognized in 1973's Roe v. Wade proceeds from this 
understanding of liberty and protects the decision whether to 
bear or beget a child.
    For nearly 50 years, the Supreme Court consistently 
affirmed the right to abortion as an essential aspect of the 
Constitution guarantees of liberty and equality. Yet, despite 
these longstanding precedents, on June 24th, the Supreme Court 
announced its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health 
Organization upholding Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion 
and overruling Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
    In the Dobbs decision, the Court declared that the 
Constitution no longer protects the right to abortion, marking 
the first time the Supreme Court has withdrawn a fundamental 
right. Critically, the Constitution's protection of liberty and 
privacy is not confined to abortion, but also underlies the 
Supreme Court's recognition of various fundamental rights, 
including rights to contraception and procreation, marriage, 
family relations, childrearing, and sexual intimacy. Despite 
the majority's assurances that the Dobbs opinion implicates 
only the right to choose an abortion and does not cast doubt on 
these other precedents, its analytical framework clearly 
implicates these other liberty rights.
    According to the majority, Roe v. Wade was egregiously 
wrong because the Constitution does not explicitly identify a 
right to abortion and such a right is not deeply rooted in the 
history or traditions of this nation. Although this account is 
inattentive to the history of the reconstruction amendments, 
the logic that the opinion applies could easily be translated 
to a range of other rights that the Court has recognized, 
including the right to contraception, the right to same-sex 
marriage, and the right to sexual intimacy.
    Accordingly, the Dobbs decision invites reconsideration of 
Griswold v. Connecticut, which protects the right to 
contraception; Obergefell v. Hodges, which secures the right to 
same-sex marriage; Lawrence v. Texas, which protects the right 
to private, consensual sexual relations; and many other 
decisions in the Court's long line of substantive due process 
cases.
    In a separate concurrence, Justice Thomas made clear his 
position on the scope of the Dobbs opinion. There, he calls for 
the Court to reconsider all the Court's precedents recognizing 
fundamental rights under the 14th Amendment's liberty 
guarantee. Although no other justice joined his concurrence, it 
would be a mistake to dismiss Justice Thomas' objections to 
these substantive due process rights as an irrelevant aside. 
Like many of his past opinions advocating for the destruction 
of fundamental liberty and privacy rights, Justice Thomas is 
signaling that the goal posts have moved. Extremist litigators, 
judges, and lawmakers are sure to respond in kind.
    As the dissent in Dobbs states, the majority promises that 
the decision to overrule Roe does not undermine any associated 
right to marriage, procreation, contraception, and family 
relationships. These promises cannot be trusted. Communities 
affected by these decisions should not be satisfied with these 
baseless claims. I, for one, am not satisfied with the 
majority's hollow assurances. I call on this Committee to 
protect these associated rights in a manner that is swift and 
absolute. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Murray follows:]


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

                  STATEMENT OF SARAH WARBELOW

    Ms. Warbelow. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Nadler, Ranking 
Member Jordan, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity 
to testify today. My name is Sarah Warbelow. I am the Legal 
Director for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest 
civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, 
bisexual, transgender, and queer equality.
    It is an honor to testify here today on behalf of more than 
our three million Members and supporters nationwide regarding 
the potential impact of the Dobbs decision on LGBTQ rights.
    I was born in a post-Roe world to a mother who fought for 
her five daughters' reproductive rights and loved us all the 
more for being able to choose us. I am shaken to my core by the 
end of Roe. Loss of abortion access is devastating, including 
to LGBTQ people who need access to safe and compassionate 
healthcare, including access to abortion, contraception, 
fertility services, so they can decide if they wish to become 
parents and when to do so.
    Dobbs is a radical rejection of 50 years of precedent of 
ending a settled body of case law upon which millions of 
Americans, including LGBTQ people, rely. The majority in Dobbs 
emphasized that it did not view the decision to overturn Roe as 
impacting the results in other substantive due process cases. 
Even saying, it is hard to see how we could be clearer. Its 
cursory analysis fails to meaningfully distinguish Dobbs from 
other substantive due process cases, except to point to fetal 
life.
    Frustratingly, the Dobbs opinion obliquely references 
Lawrence and Obergefell as examples the Court regards as 
correctly decided to reject stare decisis and overturn prior 
precedent. Both Lawrence and Obergefell expanded the realm of 
individual rights and recognized that prior decisions reflected 
animus to and exclusion of LGBTQ people.
    By contrast, the Court in Dobbs stripped away the rights of 
women and LGBTQ people to have control over when and whether to 
bear a child. Distinguishing Dobbs in this way provides cold 
comfort that the Court might not be willing to reconsider the 
outcomes of Obergefell, Lawrence, and potentially even Loving 
if presented with the opportunity to do so down the line. In 
fact, Justice Thomas' extraordinarily and alarming concurrence 
disavowing substantive due process entirely invites it.
    However, should the Court choose to do so, these precedents 
have deep, double-stranded constitutional roots. Not only 
substantive due process, but also equal protection case law. 
Moreover, LGBTQ people have robust reliance interests that 
impact their relationship to the government and that carry 
financial, familial, and other obligations.
    To put it squarely, if Lawrence were overturned, a marriage 
certificate could be evidence of a crime. Today, nearly a dozen 
States retain laws criminalizing same sex sexual relationships 
and 35 States still have laws or constitutional amendments on 
the books that bar same sex couples from marrying. Despite 
growing acceptance for LGBTQ people, coming out still comes at 
a cost. Anti-LGBTQ hate crimes and violence are at historically 
high levels.
    State legislatures have been particularly hostile to LGBTQ 
people since the Obergefell decision. Since 2015, 1,200 anti-
LGBTQ bills have been filed in State legislatures. With 
Lawrence or Obergefell perceived at risk, State legislatures 
are likely to redouble their efforts to recriminalize intimacy 
between consenting adults and undermine marriage of same sex 
couples, just as Thomas' concurrence may inspire legislators to 
pass laws in conflict with existing precedent in the hopes that 
will result in that precedent being overturned.
    State employees emboldened by Dobbs may engage in rogue 
discriminatory behavior for purposes of setting up a test case. 
Additionally, laws abrogated by Lawrence and Obergefell could 
be enforced anew. No single action can repair the 
constitutional crisis inflicted by Dobbs' radical rejection of 
precedent, but, in addition, to the Women's Health Protection 
Act, there are important steps Congress can take to stymie the 
damage. The Respect for Marriage Act, the John Lewis Voting 
Rights Enhance Act, and the Equality Act would all provide 
important protections as we fight to restore the right to 
abortion and to our other rights protected by substantive due 
process. This list is not exhaustive, but a starting point.
    There is no question that stemming the effects of Dobbs 
will require careful and concerted action at the Federal and 
State levels. Moreover, there is no question that organizations 
like HRC will vigorously defend precedents that protect the 
right to marriage, to Federal equality, and to loving who you 
love without fear of criminalization. Ultimately, it is the 
Dobbs dissent stressed. The new majority of the Supreme Court 
may not be done with its work, but neither are we.
    [The statement of Ms. Warbelow follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Ms. Foster, you are now recognized for five minutes.

              STATEMENT OF CATHERINE GLENN FOSTER

    Ms. Foster. I come before you honored to speak for all 
Americans who value human life, for every mom and dad, every 
family, every young person, every person who has fought to 
advance the human right to life. We survived Roe v. Wade, but 
Roe did not survive us. We are now living in a post-Roe 
America.
    So, what comes next? The twilight of Roe tragically does 
not yet mean the dawn of a pro-life America truly. The greatest 
threat to individual freedoms in a post-Roe world remains the 
reality that some would elevate their desire to kill over and 
against the natural right of each and every one of us to live.
    In a post-Roe world, all of us have incredible 
opportunities to proclaim that there is no liberty without 
life, without the freedom simply to be. Roe was extreme, but 
the pro-abortion law makers who called today's hearing and the 
pro-abortion witnesses want a future more extreme than even Roe 
made possible. Abortion money and abortion special interests 
continue to wield deadly power in Washington.
    Today's hearing is a testament to the menace of abortion's 
power brokers. Worse, abortion activists post-Roe are telling 
us that now, now in this incredible moment when lawmakers can 
finally uphold the human right to life, now that we might 
finally have the freedom to live, that it is now that all our 
other freedoms are somehow at risk. It is hysteria. It is 
nonsense, just not true. Anyone who has read the Dobbs decision 
can tell you that.
    There is good news. We can do better. It is in our nature 
as Americans to do better. Elizabeth Bruenig writing in the 
Atlantic just a few days ago, challenges us to make birth free 
for all Americans and I agree with her. Pregnancy, childbirth, 
post-partum care, they should all be free for all mothers. That 
is what today's hearing should be about, how to serve American 
mothers, fathers, and families. Let's having a hearing about 
that.
    Republicans boldly and courageously led the expansion of 
maternal and prenatal care during the Reagan era. There is 
truly no reason why making birth free for Americans can't be 
the bipartisan work of our time, the defining work of a 
Congress or a presidency. Instead, even in this post-Roe world, 
some in Congress see fit to focus our attention on how to 
expand the killing power of the State.
    I know from my own experience of forced abortion, the 
traumatic consequences of abortion violence. I was hurt by 
abortion. My first child never lived to take her first breath 
because of abortion. It remains a scandal that any American 
State remains neutral on abortion, that any American State 
condones or celebrates abortion violence. I was failed by 
America's experiment with abortion during the Roe era, but out 
of that trauma eventually came clarity, my vocation, my life's 
work as a constitutional attorney and as a human rights 
advocate.
    As President and CEO of Americans United for Life, I have 
been so honored to travel the States and meet people of all 
ages, backgrounds, and beliefs, Americans who are united by 
their commitment to protecting our first and most intimate 
individual freedom to live. We know what pro-abortion activists 
want, unrestricted abortion available always and everywhere. 
Every individual freedom we hear about today starts in their 
minds with a freedom to kill, but there is no such freedom.
    Abortion activism requires first dehumanizing our most 
vulnerable brothers and sisters and then hardening our hearts 
to the holistic challenges of living and thriving together. 
Contrary to what you may have heard, this life of ours is not a 
zero-sum game. No one needs to lose for others to win. We can 
only enjoy our authentic freedoms by living with the spirit of 
love, with solidarity, and with hospitality. The truth is 
living and thriving together is hard. Killing is easy. As the 
most prosperous, most powerful, most free nation in history, it 
is our responsibility to do the right thing with the gifts we 
have. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
    The common good of this American republic depends on 
rediscovering what we once knew that America will be greater if 
America is good. If not, her greatness will vanish away like a 
morning cloud. Let's be good to one another. Let's be better. 
Let's heal. Let's grow. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Foster follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Obergefell, you are now recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF JIM OBERGEFELL

    Mr. Obergefell. I am endowed with the rights to life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am part of We the 
People. All people in this nation, including LGBTQ+ people, 
are.
    My name is Jim Obergefell, and I am the named plaintiff 
from Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that made marriage equality 
the law of the land. I felt joy as a lawfully-wedded man. Nine 
years after my husband's death, I still find comfort as his 
widower. Everything changed when John and I said I do. We felt 
different. We felt better. We felt more complete. The State we 
called home, Ohio, ignored our lawful Maryland marriage. Make 
no mistake, Ohio harmed us. John was dying with ALS, Lou 
Gehrig's Disease. Even with our marriage license in hand, 
doctors, hospitals, and others could refuse to serve us. They 
could bar me from John's room, from making decisions on his 
behalf. John was nearing the end of his life and they had the 
right to ignore a dying man's most important relationship, to 
ignore any requests or decision John and I made as husbands. Is 
that moral? Is that just? Is that right? We were not equal in 
life, even when most vulnerable, dealing with a terminal 
illness.
    After death, we would still not be equal. John's death 
certificate, his last official record as a person, would be 
wrong because Ohio would say he was unmarried, and my name 
would not be listed as his surviving spouse. In the future, we 
would not be memorialized or interred together in John's family 
cemetery plot because the deed states that only direct 
descendants of his grandparents and their spouses were allowed. 
The cemetery and Ohio would not allow us to be together in 
death because they considered me a stranger. I was no stranger.
    John and I had been a couple for more than 20 years. We 
shared everything with each other. We laughed, loved, and 
disagreed. We dreamed together. We struggled together. We built 
a world together. I became his full-time caregiver as John lost 
every ability due to ALS. Nothing was easy about that. When you 
love someone, you care for them no matter what. If that was not 
marriage, I have no idea what is.
    We shared our vows and commitments in a lawful marriage 
ceremony, yet to Ohio, our marriage did not exist. We were 
treated as less than full American citizens. We were considered 
separate. Yes, we could secure every legal document and 
solution available to us, but that is a burden unfairly placed 
on same-sex couples when opposite sex couples receive those 
rights, responsibilities, and protections by simply saying I 
do. It could never provide John the dignity of dying a married 
man with an accurate death certificate.
    Families are harmed when States ignore their marriages. 
Birth certificates would not have both parents' names. What 
happens to a child if the parent listed on the birth 
certificate dies? Will that child end up in the child welfare 
system instead of at home with the only other parent they have 
known? Will a parent be able to see their child in a hospital 
and make decisions for them? Hold their child's hand through 
the pain? Or worst of all, as their child takes their last 
breath? How is any of this pro-family or in the best interest 
of a child?
    No couple, no family should be forced to go to great 
financial expense and legal effort to gain a pale approximation 
of the rights and protections that come automatically with 
marriage. Yet, those who are uncomfortable with our marriages 
and our families say that is the solution. That is not 
marriage. It sets our relationships and families apart as 
something less worthy. Discomfort or distaste is not a 
justifiable reason to deny another person their human and civil 
rights or to harm our families. If you do not protect our 
marriage equality, you are saying that we do not belong in We 
the People. You are telling us that we do not deserve life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the happiness we find in 
love and family. It is shameful for any Member of Congress to 
believe that.
    No relationship or person has been harmed because two men, 
two women, or two nonbinary people got married. Those couples 
gained so much, rights, protection, dignity, and respect. We 
are one United States and States should not be allowed to deny 
or ignore our marriages. To argue that it is okay for our 
marriages, our families to vanish by crossing a State border, a 
border within our very own nation is appalling. It is harmful. 
It is un-American. Will you tell our LGBTQ+ military Members 
that their families no longer exist when they are deployed to a 
different State? Is that how you thank them for their service, 
how you show them respect?
    People's futures became bright with Obergefell v. Hodges 
because they were no longer excluded from marriage and 
families. Parents felt joy and hope for their children. That 
day, many of us felt like an equal American for the first time 
our lives. A young woman told me that if not for marriage 
equality, she would have killed herself. Let that sink in. How 
many other lives were saved that day? How many will be lost? 
What damage will be done to our families if our right to 
marriage is taken away?
    Our understanding of humanity and society should not be 
stuck more than 200 years in the past as of the writing of 
Constitution, nor should our rights. That will not make the 
United States a more perfect union. What it will do is deny 
many of us our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. It will deny us our rightful place in We the People.
    Do the right thing and protect the right to marry. Protect 
and respect our families, protect our rights to privacy and 
intimate relations. Thank you for this time.
    [The statement of Mr. Obergefell 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 want to note that we expect a very long series of 
votes this afternoon and I will have to be very strict with the 
gavel to ensure that all Members have an opportunity to ask 
questions before votes are called. With that, I will now 
recognize myself for five minutes.
    Professor Murray, does the Dobbs ruling open the door for 
an anti-abortion majority in a future Congress to pass a 
nationwide ban on abortion?
    Ms. Murray. It does, Representative Nadler.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Warbelow, in Dobbs, the 
dissent warns that a broader retraction of other rights is 
possible, comparing the majority's decision to take away the 
constitutional right to abortion to pulling a stick out of a 
Jenga tower. Notably, Justice Thomas also wrote in a separate 
concurring opinion that the Court should eliminate the doctrine 
of substantive due process ``at the earliest opportunity and 
call for the Court to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut, 
Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.'' For some reason 
he left out Loving.
    Can you discuss how the majority opinion in Dobbs could be 
used to challenge other cases involving individual freedoms?
    Ms. Warbelow. The Court's profound rejection of long-
standing precedent over 50 years regarding substantive due 
process is terrifying. It suggests that the Court does not have 
respect for the decisions that it has made, nor for advancing 
the rights of the people of the United States. Instead, it will 
callously strip away necessary and needed medical care for 
millions of people.
    What is important is that in the future the Court is 
situated in such a way that it is not willing to apply the 
Dobbs precedent to other cases. It should not do so. However, 
the Court has not given us a profound belief that it will do 
so.
    Chair Nadler. Do you agree that Congress should fix its 
earlier mistake by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and 
would you support some level of statutory protection for 
marriage equality?
    Ms. Warbelow. The Defense of Marriage Act is a stain on 
this nation. It represents a time in which there was incredible 
hostility to LGBTQ people. I have a deep fear that hostility 
remains and is bubbling once again. It is important for 
Congress to take critical steps to ensure that marriage 
equality remains the law of the land.
    Chair Nadler. I will note that the Respect for Marriage Act 
repealing DOMA was introduced by me many years.
    Ms. Warbelow. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Obergefell, thank you for your moving 
testimony. Because of your bravery, millions of people in the 
United States now have their marriage recognized as legally 
valid. Will you share with us more about what it was like for 
you and your husband before the Supreme Court recognized same-
sex marriage as a constitutional right?
    Mr. Obergefell. Thank you, Representative Nadler. It was 
harmful. It was hurtful to have committed lawfully to the 
person you love, that most important person in your world to 
make those promises, those vows, and commitments to each other 
in a lawful ceremony and to have the State we call home ignore 
that, to say that we do not exist.
    From the simple fact that as John was dying of ALS, as I 
mentioned in my remarks, the fact that Ohio did not recognize 
our marriage gave every and any medical professional, 
paramedic, you name it, the ability to deny me access to John's 
room, to be with John. That could have prevented me from being 
with John as he took his last breath. To know that we were just 
being ignored and the State of Ohio, as well as other States in 
this nation, would simply ignore our marriage and say we don't 
care. You do not matter. You do not exist. That is incredibly 
harmful.
    For the sheer fact that we were denied the ability to be 
memorialized or interred together in John's family cemetery 
plot which is where he wanted to be. So, the harm we faced was 
pervasive. It was terrible and as American, we are supposed to 
be part of We the People and that Defense of Marriage Act at 
the State level and throughout the nation, that clearly told us 
we did not belong, we were not part of We the People, and our 
existence, our marriages were not important.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Professor Murray, would you wish 
to clarify anything that has been said for the record?
    Ms. Murray. I didn't hear your question, Chair Nadler.
    Chair Nadler. Would you like to clarify anything that has 
been said for the record?
    Ms. Murray. I just want to emphasize that the point that 
Representative Jordan made that this opinion was confined to 
the right of abortion is absolutely nonsensical. I made it very 
clear from the logic of his opinion that despite the majority's 
assurances that this logic could be extended very easily to 
other rights. Justice Thomas' concurrence makes that very 
clear. It is an open invitation to more litigation, and we are 
already seeing challenges to contraception throughout the 
States, States that are proposing limiting access to long-
acting contraception and even certain individuals like 
pharmacists refusing to dispense certain forms of drugs because 
they may be, in addition to, dealing with other health 
conditions providing--
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, my time has expired.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As hard-working families 
continue to struggle to make ends meet in the face of soaring 
inflation, now a staggering 9.1 percent, the highest in 41 
years, we are holding yet another hearing designed to divide 
the American people and distract them from the failed policies 
of the Biden Administration. It is unfortunate that this is how 
the majority is choosing to use our limited time, but it does 
present an opportunity to dispel a number of misconceptions 
that have been disseminated by pro-abortion radicals and their 
allies in the media.
    The first and probably most widely spread misconception is 
that by overturning Roe, the Supreme Court outlawed abortion. 
This is simply not true. Instead, the Dobbs decision returns 
the power to regulate abortion to the States where it always 
should have been and was prior to Roe. As a matter of public 
health, safety, and welfare, abortion regulation is properly 
delegated to the States by the 10th Amendment.
    What the question in Dobbs really boils down to is whether 
you think abortion is better addressed by the people's elected 
representatives and State legislatures or by nine unelected, 
unaccountable judges who serve on the Court for life. The 
irony, of course, is that the pro-abortion forces who 
desperately want nine unelected judges to continue to control 
abortion decisions are upset by the very decision those nine 
unelected judges just rendered on abortion. Of course, they 
only want their preferred nine unelected, unaccountable judges 
to make these decisions.
    The second misconception is that Dobbs overturned some sort 
of sacred, legal doctrine enshrined in the history of 
constitutional law. The truth is the legal doctrine in 
question, substantive due process, is a much more checkered and 
murky past that abortion advocates would have you believe.
    In one of its earliest applications, substantive due 
process was used by Chief Justice Roger Taney, appointed by 
Democrat Andrew Jackson, by the way, to the Court, to uphold 
the right of slave owners to own slaves in the Dred Scott 
decision. That reprehensible decision led in many ways to the 
birth of the Republican Party, the election of Abraham Lincoln, 
and the Emancipation Proclamation.
    A few decades later, the Court used the doctrine to 
overturn State efforts to implement more stringent labor 
regulations, arguing that the proposed rules interfered with 
the fundamental right to contract. When the version of 
substantive due process threatened to derail the New Deal in 
the mid-1930s, FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court. Where 
have we heard before? Not surprisingly, while the Court's 
liberal wing was opposed to substantive due process when it 
imperiled the New Deal, they were more than happy to utilize 
the theory when it met their needs, especially in Roe v. Wade.
    Ultimately, for over 150 years, substantive due process has 
been employed by liberal and conservative justices alike to 
find rights and liberties where other legal theories wouldn't 
adequately support the position that they wanted to adopt. In 
some ways, substantive due process helps justices fit square 
pegs into round holes and that isn't likely to change. Any 
argument to the contrary is speculative fear mongering and that 
is an issue that ought to be addressed today. The dangerously 
inflammatory rhetoric that is being employed by pro-abortion 
radicals, the Democrats have been single mindedly focused on 
the rhetoric that led up to tragic events of January 6th, and 
yet for the most part they have been silent when similar 
language and tactics are used by their supporters.
    We all know about the attempt on Justice Kavanaugh's life, 
as well as the harassment that he faced just a week ago. Less 
widely known are the threats that we have seemed aimed at 
pregnancy care centers across the country as Mr. Jordan 
referred to.
    Now, following the leak of the Supreme Court's draft 
decision in Dobbs, violent abortion groups have targeted these 
facilities and on Tuesday, Senator Elizabeth Warren even 
demanded that crisis pregnancy centers be shut down all across 
the country. Over the years, I visited a number of those 
facilities. They do great work for women and their unborn 
children and then when the children are born.
    Ms. Foster, let me ask you, because I think you are 
probably most familiar with these facilities. Could you discuss 
what actually takes place in those facilities and the assault, 
the attacks that they have been under recently?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely. The pro-life movement stands behind 
and supports women, including with a network of 3,000 plus 
pregnancy resource centers. We support women at any cost with a 
range of services, including pregnancy tests, counseling, 
diapers, and material resources like baby formula, all kinds of 
different material resources, baby clothing, training, and 
relationship counseling. Whatever a woman needs, frequently 
housing even, whatever a woman needs, the center is there to 
either give her that resource, give her that care and 
supporting counsel--
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. 
Johnson of Georgia.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Professor 
Murray, I will say that the United States Supreme Court's 
drastic and draconian edict to overturn Roe betrayed its 
guiding principles and exacted a terrible price on its 
legitimacy. Only 25 percent of Americans say that they have 
confidence in this Supreme Court. That was before the Court 
overturned Roe. So, to put it simply, this Court is in a major 
crisis.
    Professor Murray, isn't it true that the Dobbs decision 
which snuffed out the reproductive freedom of women and put 
politicians and State legislatures in control of women's bodily 
autonomy operates to relegate those women to second class 
status? If you believe that, why?
    Ms. Murray. Thank you, Representative Johnson. It is true 
that the Dobbs opinion in withdrawing the fundamental right 
from women reduces them to second class citizenship. The court 
acknowledged in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision 
that reaffirmed the right to abortion recognized in Roe, that 
the right to control one's reproductive capacity is essential 
to women's equality as equal citizens. Again, taking this right 
away limits the ability of women to control their destinies. It 
is a right that was recognized in the 14th Amendment, the 
control over procreation which had been denied enslaved women. 
It was recognized in the 14th Amendment, and it has now been 
withdrawn by this court.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. It is a fact, isn't it, 
that the majority's reasoning in Dobbs really the dissent or 
the concurring opinion of Justice Thomas implicates a plethora 
of other rights recognized under the 14th Amendment, liberty 
and privacy guarantees. It implicates--or it indicates or it 
tells us that the Court, that those rights are in jeopardy, 
that Justice Thomas cited in his concurring opinion. Even the 
right against forced sterilization is found in Skinner v. 
Oklahoma. Would you agree?
    Ms. Murray. Yes, that is exactly right. Justice Thomas' 
concurrence invites challenges to the long line of substantive 
due process cases which begins in 1923 with Meyer v. Nebraska's 
recognition of the right of parental autonomy and go all the 
way forward to 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges which recognizes same-
sex marriage.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Those rights include--those 14th 
Amendment due process privacy and liberty guarantees implicate 
the decision in Loving v. Virginia. Would you explain that, and 
would you give me some explanation of why Justice Thomas would 
exclude court review of that due process right in his 
concurring opinion?
    Ms. Murray. I agree it is a curious omission. The right to 
marry the person of one's choice as the Court recognized in 
1967 Loving v. Virginia is part of the essential civil rights 
of man. The Court said that in its decision. It also decides 
the decision on a quality ground noting that Virginia's Racial 
Integrity Act of 1927 proceeded from an interest in enshrining 
White supremacy, so it struck it down on both equal protection 
grounds, but also noted that there were significant due process 
concerns because marriage is a fundamental right. So, I am 
confused as to why it was not included in Justice Thomas' long 
laundry list of rights to be overturned, but it surely would be 
there.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, could it be that he himself 
enjoys that right conferred under Loving?
    Ms. Murray. Well, it would not be the first time that 
someone offered freedom for me, but not for thee.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. That is pretty hypocritical. 
Professor Murray, what threat does the Dobbs decision pose to 
access to contraception and other reproductive healthcare?
    Ms. Murray. I think the right to contraception is quite 
imminent. In footnote 41 of the Dobbs opinion, the Court 
attempts to link the right to contraception to eugenics and 
racial genocide. I think there is no reason to include that in 
this opinion given the other reasons the Court has for 
overruling Roe v. Wade, so I speculate that the reason that 
very curious footnote is included is to seed the ground for 
associating the right to contraception with racial injustice so 
that it may be struck down in the future.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I thank you and I thank the 
Witnesses for their testimony and their time today and with 
that I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. I just want to 
mention to the Members and Witnesses that I said I am going to 
have a very strict gavel. A light tap will be a 15-second 
warning.
    Ms. Fischbach.
    Ms. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    For nearly five decades, the American people were stripped 
of their ability to decide on the issue of abortion through 
elections and elected officials, and over 60 million unborn 
babies paid the price. Roe v. Wade unconstitutionally imposed 
abortion policy on the American people, legislated by unelected 
judges that left Americans with no voice.
    Now, this Supreme Court gave the decision back to the 
States and the American citizens. In case we have forgotten, 
this is what democracy looks like: Elected leaders accountable 
to the people they represent, they propose, debate, and pass 
laws that people support.
    Justice Alito explicitly stated in the majority opinion 
that the opinion only impacts abortion, arguing that abortion 
is fundamentally different from the other privacy issues like 
contraceptives and marriage because it destroys the life of a 
human being.
    The left wants you to believe that Republicans are 
extremists, when the fact is the majority of Americans agree 
there should be some restrictions on abortion. Americans do not 
support abortion on demand through all nine months of 
pregnancy. This is especially true when they learn all the 
scientific facts that have come out since the Roe decision was 
put down.
    My colleagues seem to be conveniently ignoring this 
information. Thanks to advances in science and modern medicine, 
the humanity of the unborn child is undeniable. At six weeks, 
an unborn child has a beating heart and facial features that 
begin to form. By 15 weeks, unborn children's major organs are 
functioning; they can suck their thumb; they have fully-formed 
noses, lips, eyes, and eyebrows, and they have facial 
expressions, and they are capable of feeling pain. Upon knowing 
this, it makes sense that the majority of Americans support 
some sorts of limits.
    Despite these facts, the left is proposing legislation that 
goes even further than Roe did. They want abortion on demand up 
until birth with no exceptions, no regulations, and no limits. 
This is extreme.
    The left also wants to paint the pro-lifers as people who 
do not care about the health of the mother. This is 
fundamentally untrue. Pro-lifers care about the mother and the 
child, the unborn child, and the mother. For decades, we have 
cared about the mothers, providing them with resources 
necessary for them to choose life, caring for the mother and 
the child. There are over 27--and maybe I should be corrected--
over 3,000 pro-life pregnancy centers across the country that 
stand ready to be there for the expectant mother, regardless of 
their circumstances.
    My colleagues on the left are full of scare tactics about 
what this country will look like now that Dobbs has been 
decided and that Roe is no longer the law of the land. We 
cannot let their fearmon-
gering and their inflammatory language pull us away from 
reality. The reality is Roe has been overturned and the 
abortion policy has been put back in the hands of States' 
elected officials, where it should be.
    I would like to yield the rest of my time to Ms. Foster. I 
believe there was a question that you wanted to answer that you 
were cut off.
    Ms. Foster. Yes. The pro-life movement supports women at 
all costs. We support them with this network of thousands of 
pregnancy care centers that outnumber abortion facilities 5-1 
in our nation. They are in communities throughout our nation, 
not just in the big cities, where the abortion businesses seem 
to target, but we are throughout our nation. We are providing 
women with all kinds of resources--the financial resources, the 
housing resources, material resources, needs for their babies; 
the needs for postpartum care, and the needs for relationship 
and job training going forward, so that they can live a full 
and fulfilling life and they can thrive in whatever they choose 
to do.
    So, I am just so incredibly proud to serve on the board of 
a pregnancy center, to support pregnancy centers with my time, 
talent, and treasure. Women deserve better than abortion. We 
deserve care. We deserve support. That is exactly what 
pregnancy centers offer.
    Ms. Fischbach. Thank you very much.
    I would just like to add that, while the pregnancy care 
centers are doing their work with volunteers and raising money 
to do that, the abortion industry is a $1.6 billion industry, 
and that is what the Democrats are protecting.
    Thank you very much. I yield back my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    First, I would like to ask Ms. Murray a few questions. It 
has been gone over pretty much, but I would like to get into 
the legal distinctions of Griswold and Roe versus Obergefell 
and Loving.
    Were two of those cases decided only on substantive due 
process, and the other two both substantive due process and 
equal protection?
    Ms. Murray. That is correct, Representative Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. So, if that is correct--and I thought it was, 
and I appreciate your clarifying for me--how could one 
distinguish this case on gay marriage from the case on 
interracial marriage? Is there any way to distinguish it at all 
legally?
    Ms. Murray. To my mind, there is no way to distinguish the 
two. Both of them acknowledge that there is a right to marry or 
not, and implicit in that right is the right to marry a person 
of one's choice.
    Mr. Cohen. It was interesting to me when I saw Clarence 
Thomas not mention Loving, which, of course, ended what was an 
archaic and abhorrent policy of telling people you couldn't 
marry somebody of a different race. It certainly affected 
Senator McConnell. It certainly affected Justice Thomas; my 
good friend back in Memphis, the late Judge Sugarmon, and so 
many others.
    The lady from the minority side, is it Ms. Foster or Ms. 
Fletcher?
    Ms. Foster. Foster, uh-hum.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Foster.
    You are a constitutional expert, as I understand it. Do you 
agree that Loving v. Virginia is indistinguishable from 
Obergefell, if taken up and discussed, as Clarence Thomas 
suggested; that it could be, and probably would be, struck down 
by this Court?
    Ms. Foster. I am a constitutional attorney specializing in 
bioethics, not in marriage. I would point out that, in Loving, 
that decision was based on equal protection with about two 
paragraphs on substantive due process. Obergefell was based on 
both equal protection and substantive due process woven 
together in Justice Kennedy's opinion.
    I would simply say that, when it comes to those cases, 
unlike Roe and Casey, we haven't seen a court challenge since 
those cases, as opposed to Roe and Casey, where we saw a 
Supreme Court case on abortion, on average, every 2-2\1/2\ 
years or so, ever since those cases came down.
    Mr. Cohen. Ms. Foster, thank you.
    I just do want to say this: That even though there were 
just two paragraphs, they are the same; they are similar. I 
would suggest in your expertise, if you specialize in ethics, I 
think that when the right to marry the person of your choice is 
at risk, and is only held up by a thin thread between two 
paragraphs and a few more paragraphs, that should include your 
subject matter of ethics and the law and the Court, because 
there is nothing more unethical than the Court and the United 
States saying you cannot marry the person you want to because 
of race or because of gender.
    Ms. Fischbach had a nice argument about the child at six 
weeks and the child at 15 weeks. She sounded much like Justice 
Roberts, who kind of said the same thing and said we should not 
repeal Roe v. Wade, but we should uphold the Mississippi law, 
which was the 15-week ban. Justice Roberts was outvoted by his 
five more radical Members of the Court who took the Federalist 
Society's pledge to go to the Court and get rid of Roe v. Wade, 
and they did their instructions. They were Pavlovian and they 
responded, and that has hurt American women.
    Someone earlier said--and I hate to think this because I 
love America; I am an American and love America and love this 
country, and I think it is a great country--but they said we 
are the freest country in the world. I think it was Ms. Foster. 
Well, right now, Canada is the freest country in the world, and 
there are a few other countries along with Canada that are 
freer than America, when we have cut women away from having the 
opportunity to get their families and their bodies to be their 
choices. The whole idea about just not outlawed, but going back 
to the States is a red herring.
    The fact is, in the hardcore red States of the Southeast, 
one time known as the Confederacy, there is but one or two 
States that would not ban abortion entirely. Those States did 
not offer many votes for the civil rights laws. They were 
passed by Congress without many votes from those red States, 
and even the red States outside of the Confederacy.
    So, we have to be concerned. The idea of the States having 
power was not because the States were concerned about 
oppressive government or because of abortion. It was because of 
slavery, and slavery was wrong, and outlawing abortion is wrong 
and outlawing gay marriage is wrong.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Cohen is wrong; Canada is not 
the freest country in the world, young people.
    [Laughter.]
    America is the greatest nation in the world. We are the 
freest, most successful, most powerful nation because, finally, 
now, we have tried to live up to the ideals articulated in the 
Declaration of Independence. Finally now, the Supreme Court, 
after 50 years, nearly 50 years of an atrocity--
    Mr. Cohen. Will you yield?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. --has brought us back to that 
truth--brought us back to that truth.
    Mr. Cohen. Would you yield to--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It is my time, and I will not 
yield, Mr. Cohen, because your comments are absurd. This 
hearing is absurd.
    Mr. Cohen. Your comments are absurd. You're absurd.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. This hearing is--
    Chair Nadler. It is Mr. Johnson's time, Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
    This hearing is absurd. The Democrat majority has called us 
here for this hearing entitled, ``The Threat to Individual 
Freedoms in a Post-Roe World.'' Come on.
    The first inalienable individual freedom is the right to be 
born; it is the right to life. We boldly declared that in our 
nation's birth certificate. America should continue to uphold 
the sanctity of human life. State and local and Federal 
government officials have a duty, a constitutional 
responsibility, to protect that fundamental right. All life is 
precious, and there is an inherent, compelling interest in 
protecting unborn children because they are unable to protect 
themselves.
    The radical advocates of abortion are now completely 
unhinged, and they are seeking to trample on the individual 
freedoms of all those who disagree with them. Over the weekend, 
the left-wing activist group ShutDownDC offered $200 bounties 
for public sightings of Supreme Court Justices they disagree 
with. It is obvious the point of their tweet, and all the 
attention they were trying to gather there, is to get people to 
harass conservative justices when they are out in public. They 
don't have any individual freedoms. ``Hey, man, they're fair 
game.''
    Then, Senator Elizabeth Warren, I mean she is completely 
unhinged now. She said pro-life pregnancy centers should be 
shut down all around the country. It is appalling for her to 
say that.
    There are 2,700 pregnancy centers all around this country, 
all 50 States. They are supported by over 10,000 licensed 
medical professionals. They annually serve approximately two 
million women and men. I was legal counsel for many of these 
pregnancy centers. I can tell you from my own experience they 
do exceptional, critical work.
    Why would anybody want to shut down pregnancy centers that 
exist to provide counseling, care, aid, and comfort to 
struggling mothers who just want to have their babies? It 
defies logic. The answer is simple. Their extreme agenda 
demands it.
    Speaking of extreme agendas, let me tell you what my 
friends on the other side of the aisle are for. Okay? They 
filed H.R. 8296 in this Congress. They call it the Women's 
Health Protection Act of 2022. We call it the ``Abortion on 
Demand Until Birth Act.'' You don't know why? Because it is 
extreme. It would create a national standard to allow for 
abortions for unborn children for any reason at any stage of 
pregnancy up until birth. Read the bill. That is not a talking 
point.
    It allows for discriminatory abortions on the basis of the 
baby's sex, race, and disability. It would override pro-life 
laws and prohibit States from enacting legislation that 
protects unborn children, such as protections for babies with 
Down's syndrome and other disabilities. It removes common-sense 
protections for women and children.
    For example, the Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act, the 
Democrats' bill, would not allow States to enact laws to ensure 
parental involvement for minors, laws to protect women from 
coercion. They don't care. The agenda demands, the zeal for 
this demands that they override all that. Their bill includes 
the vague language that could also weaken conscience 
protections for medical professionals and limit their right to 
refuse to participate in an abortion.
    Do you think that they are not all onboard for this? Guess 
what? On September 24th of last year, all but one Democrat in 
the House of Representatives voted on an almost identical bill. 
Go look it up, H.R. 3755. Abortion on demand until birth, that 
is what this agenda demands.
    Ms. Foster said it so well earlier. You mentioned this 
agenda begins with dehumanizing the unborn child. I just have a 
minute left, but in my experience, my colleagues here are not 
able to acknowledge that what is inside the mother's womb is 
actually a child. In your work, in your experience, has that 
been yours as well?
    Ms. Foster. It has been.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. There is a reason that they won't 
acknowledge that it is a child, because, then, it allows them 
to pursue this radical abortion on demand until birth.
    I believe--and this is for all the young people here and 
those watching--I believe that you can end this debate; if you 
can take people to the medical reality of the humanity of the 
unborn child, we win. This is a pro-life country, increasingly 
so, because we have medical technology. We have 4D ultrasounds. 
No one can lie to us anymore and tell us it is a blob of 
tissue; that it is just a clump of cells. This is a baby. At 
six weeks, it has a heartbeat. At 15 weeks, it can feel pain, 
suck its thumb; it has eyebrows, lips, nose, and the whole 
thing.
    Look at the reality, folks. Do not let them obscure the 
facts. We are a pro-life country, and we should be.
    I am out of time. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman very much.
    Since we are in the middle of a tutorial, let me speak from 
the heart--speak from the years of service on this Committee, 
years of knowledge of ruined lives with criminal approaches to 
trying to, before Roe, to help persons, women, make their 
determination on their reproductive freedom.
    This is an absurd posture that is being taken here. I 
respect the religious beliefs of all, and I respect that there 
are differences in this nation. It is an outrage what is going 
on here in the United States because it is clearly evidence 
that we are in trouble.
    The Nineth Amendment is clear, along with the other 
protections, that if it is not enumerated, it still does not 
deny me my right to privacy; my right to marry who I want to 
marry; my right for once in life to be able to assure that I 
can marry someone of a different race.
    You know what States' rights are? Hanging Black people. You 
know what States' rights are? The denial of civil rights. That 
is what States' rights can be. Leave it to the elected persons 
of the State? If they had done that, I would still be a second-
class citizen. It took the 13th Amendment to say that slavery 
was illegal.
    So, let me, first, say we know that, in Ohio, a 10-year-old 
rape victim was denied an abortion and forced to travel across 
State lines to access care. We know that a package was left at 
a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, and an explosive 
device went off. We know that a Planned Parenthood Clinic in 
Columbus was vandalized, ``Satan den of baby killers.'' We know 
that, in Baltimore, an abortion provider, health provider, 
healthcare clinic, with anti-abortion graffiti was attacked. A 
Planned Parenthood clinic at Claremont, New York, was 
vandalized by a juvenile. An unidentified person deliberately 
set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic. We can go on and on 
and on. Is that America? I don't think so.
    Professor Murray, help me understand because I have always 
had the greatest admiration for the legal prominence of the 
Supreme Court. I want to have you expand on these words very 
quickly as my time runs out.
    Justice Gorsuch said in confirmation hearings, ``It has 
been reaffirmed. A good judge will consider it as precedent''--
this is reference to Roe v. Wade--``of the U.S. Supreme Court 
worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.''
    Brett Kavanaugh, regarding Roe v. Wade, ``It is settled as 
a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled to respect under 
principles of stare decisis.''
    Then, Amy Coney Barrett,

        I will obey all the rules of stare decisis.

        If a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any 
        other case should be overruled, that I will follow the law of 
        stare decisis, applying it as the Court is articulating it, 
        applying all the factors . . . .

    Professor Murray, I am trying to see where you are. There 
you are. Good to see you.
    What does that do in imploding the American concept of 
justice and the role of the Supreme Court that has now caused 
the clashes of American people, one at each other, because the 
refuse that we look for in civil rights, in marriage, and who 
to marry, and the defense of marriage, is no longer there? 
Professor Murray?
    Ms. Murray. You're exactly right, Representative Lee. This 
principle of stare decisis, that the Court follows settled 
precedent--and indeed, Roe is a settled precedent; it has 
repeatedly been reaffirmed until it was overruled on June 
24th--that provides predictability for individuals, the 
assurance that they know that their rights are protected.
    I think part of the outrage that you are describing is 
because people in this country recognize that this decision was 
upheld for almost 50 years, and the only thing that has changed 
since those 50 years has been the composition of this Court and 
the installation of a 6-3 conservative supermajority.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. What does it say about confirmation 
hearings when judges are under oath?
    Ms. Murray. I mean, again, these judges promised to follow 
a precedent, and it is clear that they did not. If the 
confirmation hearings are to assure the American people about a 
judicial philosophy, I think the American people have been 
hoodwinked.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    We need to expand the Court.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Gaetz? I'm sorry. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    Ms. Foster, are you familiar with the proposal by the 
majority to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices to 
get the outcome they want?
    Ms. Foster. I am.
    Mr. Issa. Are you familiar with, a little more esoteric, 
H.R. 4886, the Circuit Court Judgeship Act?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. Which would add 203 additional Federal judges 
selected by the President and the Democratic majority in the 
Senate at this time.
    So, it is interesting to me that everyone seems to be so 
interested in this Court making a decision, that it looks like 
they are ready to simply choose some additional people to make 
the opposite decision. Is that the politicization of the Court 
in a way that we have never seen it before?
    Ms. Foster. It certainly is, and that is exactly what 
Justice Alito repudiated for the Court in his majority opinion 
in Dobbs.
    Mr. Issa. Looking at Dobbs for a moment, it certainly does 
undo previous decisions of the Court. Is that unheard of, for 
the Court, decades later, to reconsider decisions in light of 
some change, not just in the Court, but in the times?
    Ms. Foster. It certainly is not unheard of. In fact, just 
two days ago, there was a hearing in the Senate in which one of 
the Senators was talking about the Janus case just a couple of 
years ago. There have been numerous other cases that follow 
those, those same lines.
    Mr. Issa. Well, let's, since Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee was up 
before us and seemed to be so certain that you should never, 
never, never overturn precedent and that these people lied. 
What would happen if Dred Scott were still in place today?
    No, I will go there because freedom is what we are 
discussing--in this case, freedom to live for the unborn. What 
would happen, what would happen if we simply said, once the 
Court makes a decision it can never change its mind?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield? Would the 
gentleman yield?
    Mr. Issa. Of course not.
    Ms. Foster. There's a reason why there are certain factors 
that the Justices examine when going through stare decisis 
analysis. If those factors are met, then a case may be right 
for a reconsideration. Obviously, we do have stare decisis for 
a reason, but we follow precedent because it's correct and 
right and constitutional, not just because a few robed men 
wrote some words down on paper a few decades ago.
    Mr. Issa. Well, let's go into the decision that was 
overturned. Is it fair to say that the previous decisions, 
including Roe, basically, said that the unborn child had no 
rights, that all the rights up until--in the case of California 
and many other States--birth belong to the mother, and the 
mother exclusively? That was, essentially, the law of the land 
federally guaranteed?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. By overturning it, does that inherently give any 
rights to the unborn child?
    Ms. Foster. It does not.
    Mr. Issa. So, as we speak here today, we've simply taken 
away the denial of all rights of a child and left to the States 
the opportunity to balance the rights of an unborn child, 
viable and able to feel pain, viable and able to be born alive, 
is that right?
    Ms. Foster. That's right, and that's the balance that the 
Court attempted to and failed to strike in both Roe and Casey. 
This Court has achieved it.
    Mr. Issa. Now, isn't one of the inherent flaws in Roe and 
Casey that what they did was they were only giving rights to 
the mother and they never recognized the right of the living 
child inside the womb?
    Ms. Foster. Correct.
    Mr. Issa. Now, I'm a Californian. So, I know that my 
Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, and that my State, considers that a 
child already outside the womb still doesn't have rights in my 
State because we still are effectively a partial birth abortion 
State.
    So, the question I think for all of us here today is, do we 
trust the legislatures of the State to give rights to the 
unborn child or the nearly born child or the just born child? 
Or should we, in fact, be sitting here, instead of discussing 
how to codify abortion up to the date of birth, should we be 
talking about the rights, respect for life, the respect for 
that child? Is that what you would prefer we do here today?
    Ms. Foster. It certainly is. We should be talking about 
protection, respect, dignity, and equal rights for all human 
beings.
    Mr. Issa. I will close by simply saying the Chair of this 
Committee when I first came to Congress, Chair Hyde, would be 
having that discussion, if he were here alive today. He would 
be talking about respect for life.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Cicilline?
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    On June 24th, the Supreme Court's radical, conservative 
majority made clear that they were not only gutting 50 years of 
women's established constitutional rights to make their own 
reproductive decisions, but that abortion was just the first on 
a laundry list of rights that they were prepared to 
eviscerate--the right to privacy in intimate relations; the 
right to raise your children how you see fit; the right to 
contraception; the right to same-sex marriage.
    When people talk about the radical advocates, as my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have described, I am 
a radical advocate for personal freedom and individual liberty. 
Our democracy is premised on a notion of basic individual 
autonomy. We don't let States, or even the Federal government, 
take away rights that the Constitution establishes.
    So, it's not should we trust States to do it; it's do we 
trust the individual--and in this case it is women--to make 
their own healthcare decisions. It is astonishing to me that 
anyone who has read this decision is not worried about many 
other rights that are at issue and that are in danger, 
regardless of what your political party is, regardless of what 
your views on abortion. There are lots and lots of rights that 
are also at risk. So, I hope all of America is paying attention 
to this decision because your rights, well-established 
freedoms, are hanging in the balance.
    That brings me to my first question. Ms. Warbelow, thank 
you for your incredible work, for your testimony.
    Thank you, Mr. Obergefell, for your really compelling 
testimony, for your courage and bravery in helping to bring 
marriage equality to millions and millions of people in this 
country.
    If you look at Justice Alito's adherence to a legal 
philosophy known as original intent, which involves examining 
the founding documents' language to derive meaning on the 
contemporary issues, can you explain why this method of legal 
reasoning is outdated and antithetical to a modern society, 
particularly to Members of the LGBTQ community who have 
historically been discriminated against, and if you follow that 
reasoning, may never live in a country where they can live 
lives free of discrimination? Finally, would the Equality Act 
address that?
    Ms. Warbelow. First, it's important to note that it's very 
difficult to discern original intent. We cannot always know 
what is in the mind of a legislator when they pass a law. In 
fact, people may have conflicting reasons for passing a law. 
That's why, basing on original intent, whether it's a piece of 
legislation or a constitutional amendment, is a flawed approach 
to legal analysis.
    Beyond that, taking that approach continues to privilege 
those with power, and individuals, LGBTQ people; people of 
color, particularly Black and Brown people; people with 
disabilities, and women will continue to be disadvantaged if we 
are always taking into account what was written more than two 
centuries ago by White men who were interested in maintaining 
control of society, rather than sharing equality with all.
    Mr. Cicilline. Which, as Dahlia Lithwick I think so 
eloquently said, ``This move cynically weaponizes a deeply 
rooted history and tradition of little protective liberty and 
vast inequality to eradicate the modern jurisprudence of 
American liberty and equality,'' which is exactly what you just 
said.
    Professor Murray, under Roe and Casey, the right to 
abortion was implicitly read into the 14th Amendment due 
process clause, and obviously, was deemed a fundamental right. 
In Dobbs, Justice Alito rejects this approach, reasoning again 
that only rights that are ``deeply rooted in the nation's 
history and tradition'' and ``implicit in the concept of 
ordered liberty'' are fundamental rights.
    Again, what are the implications of adhering to this logic 
for other rights, and specifically, what would the impact be, 
in addition to that on in vitro fertilization, if State 
abortion laws are interpreted as granting fertilized human eggs 
legal rights and protections?
    Ms. Murray. Thank you for the question.
    Let me reiterate, the right to choose your procreative 
future is not just implicit in the guarantee of liberty. It was 
actually explicit in the 14th Amendment's ratifiers' views of 
this anti-slavery amendment. So, it proceeds from that ethic, 
and it does have important repercussions, overruling the right 
contained in Roe does have important repercussions for in vitro 
fertilization.
    As you know, part of the in vitro process often requires 
the selective elimination of embryos. So, there are lots of 
questions about whether or not this limitation on the right to 
procreate could have broad repercussions for assisted 
reproductive technology, including ART and IVF.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to introduce into the 
record the ``United States: Freedom in the World 2022 Country 
Report'' because, sadly, America is less free than it was just 
a few years ago. So, this isn't a question about what we think. 
This is a report that shows we have slipped. America is less 
free. The Supreme Court is attacking our freedoms. We need to 
stand up and codify everything we can to protect all Americans, 
so they can be free from discrimination of any kind and 
recognize the autonomy of every single--
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                      MR. CICILLINE FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
    Ms. Foster, I am familiar with a lot of pregnancy centers 
in my district, in my State. Does your pregnancy center of care 
that you are involved with, does that care end when a child is 
born?
    Ms. Foster. It does not.
    Mr. Gohmert. What happens after that?
    Ms. Foster. After the child is born, the pregnancy center 
continues to be there for the woman, partner, family, providing 
material resources, such as baby clothes, baby formula, 
diapers, any other needs; providing training, parenting 
training, jobs skills training; a number of other resources. 
Whatever the young woman, the young family needs, the pregnancy 
center is there for them.
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, it is such a contrast that you would 
care for the mother, care for the life of the child, such a 
contrast to what I learned in multiple conversations with the 
former Director of Planned Parenthood in Sherman, Texas, Ramona 
Trevino.
    She was a bright, shining star in her high school; got 
pregnant, and then, resolved to have an abortion; didn't, but 
she didn't go to college. Then, years later, found that there 
was an opening for a Director of Planned Parenthood. She 
applied and was thrilled to have gotten the position, and she 
was very, very smart.
    During her time there, she said the emphasis was not, in 
the monthly director's meeting was not on the number of 
abortions, even though that is where the huge money came from, 
but it was on how many young girls did you get started on birth 
control. The younger, the better because they were taught 
through their directorship at Planned Parenthood that the 
younger you can get a girl started on birth control, the better 
the odds are that she will forget to take the pill; she will 
get pregnant, and then, she will have an abortion.
    They are nurtured--I am using that very loosely--by people 
that worked at Planned Parenthood,

        Look, your mother is not going to understand. You come to me. 
        Don't come to your mother. I'll understand.

    They got that relationship. What really ended up driving 
her away from all that was the thought that ``they would come 
between me and my daughter,'' and that was too much.
    Now, we have been hearing ``My body, my choice'' from 
people for so long, and that is true. It is also true of the 
child. We had that fraud exposed when we heard from so many who 
had been screaming, ``My body, my choice,'' as they screamed 
that everybody has to have an experimental drug which has 
caused great damage and death in people; alters the RNA, but 
you are going to have to have that injected into your body; I 
don't care what your biology is. So, that was exposed as not 
really being as consistent, actually coming into the fraud 
area.
    Let me tell you, we sat here in this room and listened to 
an abortionist talk about how he did the late-term abortion. 
Our daughter was born 8-10 weeks prematurely. Back then, it was 
a big deal. We didn't know if she would live or not. My wife 
had to stay at the hospital in Tyler. She encouraged me to 
follow the ambulance going to the higher-level neonatal ICU.
    The doctor there said,

        She can't recognize your face because her eyes aren't working 
        that well yet. She knows your voice. She's been listening to 
        your voice for months. So, talk to her and touch her little 
        face. You can be there for two hours, then take a break and 
        come back.

    They had her hooked up to all these things, and her 
breathing was very erratic, very shallow; her heart very 
erratic, very fast. Eventually, the doctor came over and said, 
``Have you noticed the monitors?'' They had stabilized. He 
said, ``She's drawing strength and life from you.''
    The thought that anybody that cares about other people 
could want to have a child like that, have their arms and legs 
ripped off and their head crushed and pulled is just an 
abomination.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 
time of the gentleman has expired.
    Ms. Demings?
    Mr. Gohmert. I yield back.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    It is disappointing that here we are today in 2022, with 
all the challenges that we are facing, still fighting the same 
old fight for individual rights, but here we are. That is a 
fight that we will continue to fight and should be fighting.
    Why is it so easy to call the vicious rape of a 10-year-old 
girl a hoax, a lie, a political stunt? The police certainly 
didn't think so when they made their arrest. Why is it so easy 
for some to always say, assault against women, it must be the 
woman's fault?
    For decades, victims of rape were always questioned, viewed 
with suspicion--too frequently questioned and viewed with 
suspicion, or even questions that perhaps somehow, she brought 
the tragedy on herself. Why was she there? How was she dressed? 
Did she want it?
    I have investigated cases of rape and sexual assault and 
incest. How can we sit here today--are we serious?--and say, 
regardless of the physical, emotional, and psychological 
trauma, the women and girls who survive these vicious attacks, 
that does not matter? That the only thing that matters is 
denying them their individual constitutional rights? Are we 
really serious?
    The only thing that matters is treating them. With all the 
work that has been done in this country by people who paved the 
way, the efforts to continue to treat women and girls like 
property and like second-class citizens, to say that you have 
to go to your Member of Congress or your Governor or your 
Senator and ask for permission--come on, America.
    Shirley Chisholm said, ``The . . . sexual and psychological 
stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, `It's a 
girl.' ''
    My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have the 
audacity to say freedom is what we are discussing here. Well, 
you're damn right. That is exactly what we are discussing 
here--individual freedoms. Who do we think we are to tell 
people how to live their lives? To every family raising 
daughters, to my four granddaughters, we all have reason, 
regardless of your political--come on, America--regardless of 
your political standing, we all have reason to be very 
concerned.
    What's next? We ought to be asking ourselves, okay, what's 
next? If you think it stops here--well, there has already been 
an indication that it does not stop here. With the call, the 
bold call, to look at Griswold and Lawrence, and even marrying 
the person that you love--I thought that was an American 
tradition, but I guess not in the minds of some.
    Professor Murray, I just want to just, if you would, 
reiterate on not just the issue of Roe, because that is pretty 
doggone important to me--and I would think to every man and 
woman, it should be, raising a girl, a daughter. Would you just 
kind of go into why should we all be concerned about other 
constitutional individual rights, rights to privacy, being 
trampled upon?
    Ms. Murray. Certainly. Thank you, Representative Demings.
    I think we should all be concerned about the prospect of 
fundamental rights being overruled and returned to the States 
for democratic deliberation. To ask the States to decide our 
most essential freedoms is essentially to make all of us 
supplicants to the government. That cannot be what the Framers 
of the Constitution imagined.
    These were gentlemen who were concerned about the prospect 
of government overreach into individual lives. These were 
people who wrote the Third Amendment, which protects against 
the quartering of soldiers in your home. I cannot imagine that 
the Framers would countenance allowing the government to make 
the most intimate decisions for individuals, rather than 
allowing individuals to make those decisions for themselves. 
That's exactly what this decision and its progeny will do.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Gaetz?
    Mr. Gaetz. Ms. Warbelow, what is the most likely 
circumstance when a same-sex couple would benefit from abortion 
access?
    Ms. Warbelow. Unfortunately, we have women who experience 
sexual assault. In fact, lesbian and bisexual women are more 
likely to experience sexual assault than heterosexual women. 
Their pregnancies are often involuntary. So, these are 
individuals who would need access to abortion care.
    Mr. Gaetz. We will shelve the bisexual women for a moment, 
since my question is about the same-sex couples. What is more 
likely, a lesbian woman having an unwanted pregnancy as the 
consequence of a sexual assault or a gay couple adopting in 
America?
    Ms. Warbelow. These are both laudable goals.
    Mr. Gaetz. No, I didn't ask--I know they are. Which is more 
likely?
    Ms. Warbelow. I think that is impossible to know whether or 
not--
    Mr. Gaetz. We have tens of thousands of same-sex couples 
that are raising families and raising children as a consequence 
of adoption--tens of thousands. We know that as a consequence 
of Census data.
    So, is there any data you are able to reference that it 
would be more likely for a lesbian woman to have an unwanted 
pregnancy as a consequence or rape than the formation of a 
family through a same-sex couple adopting?
    Ms. Warbelow. It may not be more likely, but it's an 
important interest that somebody who--
    Mr. Gaetz. Is it less likely? No, I'm not asking about the 
importance of the interest--
    Ms. Warbelow. --needs assisted abortion care be able to 
access it.
    Mr. Gaetz. I am very limited on time. The question is--you 
would concede that it is certainly more likely in America that 
you have same-sex couples adopting than you do lesbians having 
unwanted pregnancies as a consequence of sexual assault, right?
    Ms. Warbelow. Well, there may also be a misunderstanding 
about how same-sex couples form families. I also think it's 
important to note that many bisexual women are, in fact, in 
relationships with other women.
    Mr. Gaetz. Again, I said--
    Ms. Warbelow. So, maybe I'm misunderstanding that.
    Mr. Gaetz. If a woman is with men and women, they are 
bisexual, right?
    Ms. Warbelow. That is not true, sir. An individual who is 
attracted to people of both sexes, both male and female, is one 
who is bisexual. They can be in long-term, monogamous 
relationships.
    Mr. Gaetz. I don't ask this to be dismissive, but so are 
you saying lesbian women are also capable being into men?
    Ms. Warbelow. That is not what I said. I said bisexual.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes, but my question is about lesbians, same-sex 
couples, right? Because I care about this issue deeply. With 
the support of the Human Rights Campaign, I sponsored the 
legislation to get rid of the statutory prohibition on gay 
adoption in Florida. I felt that was very bigoted. I believe 
families are defined by love more than blood.
    I worry that, if the LGBTQ community, and if the advocacy 
organizations for same-sex couples, somehow reorients to be a 
pro-abortion enterprise, that this could actually result in 
fewer same-sex couples having access to the family formation 
that gives them fulfilled lives. Are you concerned about that?
    Ms. Warbelow. What I would be concerned about is forcing 
women to carry a pregnancy simply to satisfy another couple's 
desire to have a child. There are many methods of family 
formation. Many same-sex couples use fertility treatments, 
assisted reproductive technologies, in addition to adoption. In 
fact, LGBTQ people are more likely to adopt children who are 
most in need.
    Mr. Gaetz. Three times more likely, yes.
    Ms. Warbelow. There is more reaching out of foster care, 
absolutely.
    Mr. Gaetz. No, I have noted that actually same-sex couples 
are three times more likely than opposite-sex couples to adopt 
in America. That is why it is astonishing to me that people 
that would purport to advocate for gay Americans would say what 
we need is abortion on demand, because it is these very people 
who are engaging in these adoptions.
    Maybe it is really not about the benefit of gay couples. 
Maybe it is about the money. Because, Ms. Foster, you made 
reference to how much money is behind the pro-abortion effort 
in America. Do you worry that organizations like the Human 
Rights Campaign that, traditionally, have stood up for the 
interests and families of gay couples, same-sex couples, might 
be coopted by the coercive and dangerous money that is just for 
abortion at all cost?
    Ms. Foster. Planned Parenthood receives half a billion 
taxpayer dollars every single year, and I think that a lot of 
that--maybe all of it--should go towards actually planning 
parenthood.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes. Adoption is a beautiful thing. It really is 
a beautiful thing. This desire to have these reflexive, snap 
abortions seem to stand in the way of that.
    Another element of your testimony, Ms. Warbelow, you said 
that States were likely to redouble their efforts against 
marriage equality as a consequence of the Dobbs decision. There 
isn't a single State in America where there has been a single 
legislative Committee that had held a single vote on a single 
bill to attack marriage equality following Dobbs, has there?
    Ms. Warbelow. I'm sorry, sir, that is not--well, following 
Dobbs? Dobbs just happened.
    Mr. Gaetz. Right.
    Ms. Warbelow. Most State legislatures are not in session. 
However--
    Mr. Gaetz. Since Dobbs, that has never happened. There is 
no real threat for marriage inequality.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman--
    Mr. Gaetz. That is an inventive threat.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Jeffries?
    Mr. Jeffries. I thank the Chair for convening this hearing 
and our Witnesses for their presence.
    We are in the midst of an extreme right-wing assault by an 
illegitimate Supreme Court majority on women's rights, 
reproductive rights, marital rights, family planning rights, 
civil rights, voting rights, labor rights, and the right to 
liberty and justice for all--an assault by an illegitimate 
Supreme Court majority and a right-wing movement here in this 
country determined to jam its values down the throats of the 
American people and strip away liberty.
    It is interesting to me that, Ms. Foster, I think you made 
the statement earlier that the people who support abortion care 
are extreme, is that correct?
    Ms. Foster. Anyone who would support abortion up to the 
baby's birthday is extreme.
    Mr. Jeffries. I think what you have heard people within the 
pro-choice movement articulate is that we support a woman's 
freedom to make her own reproductive healthcare decisions. That 
is not extreme. That is mainstream. It is mainstream if you 
support the fact that this decision, reproductive decisions, 
should be between a woman and her doctor.
    We don't need Ted Cruz or anyone else involved in making 
that decision. That is extreme, what you want to bring about. 
It is extreme to criminalize abortion care throughout America. 
That is extreme. What is extreme is imposing government-
mandated pregnancies, even, apparently, in some States in the 
case of a 10-year-old girl being raped. That is extreme. That 
is extreme. It is extreme to unleash bounty hunters on the 
women and children of America. That is extreme. That is not 
pro-life.
    What is interesting is that the pro-life movement, often 
so-called ``movement,'' often says that they support the 
America family, so we support children. At the same time, these 
individuals vote against the Child Tax Credit that reduced 
child poverty by more than 40 percent in America. That is not 
pro-family. That is anti-child. It is anti-child when you 
actually vote against a legislative effort to deal with the 
infant baby formula shortage in America. That is not pro-
family. That is anti-child. It is anti-child when Republican 
Governor after Republican Governor in this country refused to 
expand access to Medicaid which supports women and children.
    So, spare us the lectures and the phony rhetoric about 
being pro-family, when in instance after instance after 
instance you behave in an extreme way that is anti-child, that 
is anti-family.
    Now, Professor Murray, you are familiar with the fact that 
several Supreme Court Justices during their Senate testimonies 
seemed to strongly suggest that they viewed Roe v. Wade as 
settled law, is that right.
    Ms. Murray. That's correct, Representative Jeffries.
    Mr. Jeffries. Several of those individuals who testified 
that Roe v. Wade was settled law, suggesting that they weren't 
going to touch it, for a variety of reasons--stare decisis, the 
principle of reliance interest that is a big part of Supreme 
Court jurisprudence--then turned around the first chance they 
got and stripped away a woman's freedom to make her own 
reproductive healthcare decisions, is that true?
    Ms. Murray. That's correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. Now, these same Justices, some of them, are 
suggesting we don't have to worry about stripping away the 
freedom of Americans to make their own decisions as to who they 
want to marry or how they should plan a family, is that right?
    Ms. Murray. That is also correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. Is there any reason to believe that this 
illegitimate Supreme Court majority with Members who clearly 
misrepresented their views before the United States Senate 
during sworn testimony should now be believed that they are not 
going after the substantive due process rights that are the 
subject of this hearing?
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Foster, is it extreme, in an effort to intimidate the 
Court, when left-wing groups pay people who tell them where a 
Supreme Court Justice is having dinner with his family? Is that 
extreme?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. Is it extreme when the Court, for the first 
time in history, someone in the Court leaks a draft opinion? Is 
that extreme and an effort to intimidate the Court?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. Is it extreme when, in an effort to intimidate 
the Court, when the Speaker of the House holds up a bill for 
four weeks designed to protect, giving protection to a Supreme 
Court Justice's family who had their kids' school put online? 
Is that extreme?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. Is it extreme, is it extreme when the Justice 
Department, a key agency in the Executive Branch, fails to 
prosecute protestors, ignoring a statute that is directly on 
point when they are protesting at a Supreme Court Justice's 
home in an effort to intimidate them and influence a decision, 
a case pending in front of the Court? Is that extreme and an 
effort to intimidate the Court?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. How about the 50 incidents in 10 weeks of 
crisis pregnancy centers and churches being attacked by left-
wing activists? Is that extreme and an effort to intimidate 
pro-life Americans around the country?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. Give us a lecture on extreme? You have got to 
be kidding me.
    Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this: We noticed today 
that, when you came in, you had a security detail with you, is 
that true?
    Ms. Foster. Yes, that's correct.
    Mr. Jordan. This is the second time you have testified in 
front of our Committee?
    Ms. Foster. It is.
    Mr. Jordan. You testified a few weeks ago. What day? Can 
you refresh my--I don't remember the date. It was May? Three 
weeks ago? Four weeks ago?
    Ms. Foster. Something like that, yeah.
    Mr. Jordan. Maybe I guess it was two--
    Ms. Foster. Post-leak.
    Mr. Jordan. Post-leak. So, I think it was May, the middle 
of May, you testified. Did you have a security detail then?
    Ms. Foster. I did not. I did not have a personal security 
detail at the time.
    Mr. Jordan. Is there a reason you have them now then?
    Ms. Foster. There is. I've had to employ both personal and 
office security because of the threats that I and my colleagues 
have received, similar to the threats that have been received, 
and in fact carried out, all across the country with those 50 
attacks.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, here is what I am going to do. Did you 
receive those threats after you testified?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. So, that is when they started? You testified as 
a Republican witness, pro-life Witness in front of this 
Committee, and then, you started getting threats. As a result, 
you now have to have a security detail? Is that right?
    Ms. Foster. That's correct.
    Mr. Jordan. So, it is not just the pro-life clinics and 
churches. It is people who have the willingness to come forward 
and testify in a hearing in front of the United States Congress 
who also get it. We all know. The left always talks about the 
threats they get. We all get these threats. It is terrible. I 
wish no one did. I don't want anyone to have these things. It 
doesn't matter what side of the political aisle you are on; we 
shouldn't have it. All I know is, in 10 weeks, we have had 50 
happen to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers and to churches.
    Ms. Warbelow, do you agree with the leaking of the Dobbs 
opinion?
    Ms. Warbelow. I do not, but I do want to clarify that it's 
not first time that a Supreme Court opinion has been leaked. We 
don't know who leaked the opinion or for what purpose.
    Mr. Jordan. I don't know; I don't pretend to know who 
leaked it. I am just asking if you agree with the leak, because 
someone on the left seemed to agree with that.
    Ms. Foster, this concerted effort by the left to engage in 
an effort to intimidate the Court I think is dangerous, 
particularly when you have the Legislative Branch of 
government, as evidenced by the actions taken by Speaker Pelosi 
in holding up that legislation and the lack of efforts to 
enforce a statute, 18 U.S.C. 1507, by the Executive Branch, the 
Justice Department--when you have two branches of government 
looking to be a part of the left's effort to intimidate a 
separate and equal branch of government, I find that very 
troubling.
    As someone who understands the Constitution, a 
constitutional scholar, give me your thoughts on that.
    Ms. Foster. I certainly agree that it's troubling. The 
legislation that would protect Supreme Court Justices should 
never be held up. No one should be subjected to violence, 
whether in their home, at their church, at their ministry, or 
in the womb.
    Mr. Jordan. Yes. Well said. Well said.
    The idea that we had an assassination attempt on a sitting 
Justice in America, as my colleague Mr. Johnson said, ``the 
freest, greatest country ever, is just so wrong.'' It is driven 
by the statements made by Senator Schumer on the steps of the 
Capitol when he talked about ``unleashing the whirlwind.'' We 
have certainly seen that play out in the last 10 weeks here in 
our great country, and that is unfortunate, and I hope it 
changes.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I would yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chair Nadler.
    You are going to hear a lot of words from my Republican 
colleagues today on this Committee, and all I have to do is 
give you one example that is devastating to their statements. 
That is this: A 10-year-old girl got raped in Ohio and got 
pregnant. She could not get an abortion because none of the 
exceptions in the Ohio law would have authorized it. What did 
MAGA Republicans do? They smeared her. They said she was lying. 
In fact, at least one Republican Member of this Committee 
publicly tweeted that she lied, and then, quietly deleted that 
tweet when--guess what? Her perpetrator was arrested. I call on 
any MAGA Republican who smeared this little girl to publicly 
apologize.
    It gets worse than that, because this little girl had to go 
to Indiana to get an abortion or abortion care. Guess what MAGA 
Republicans are doing now? They are going after the doctor--
that's right--the doctor who helped this little girl. Because 
the truth is MAGA and far-right Republicans want government-
mandated pregnancies for everyone, including 10-year-old rape 
victims. That is extreme.
    Now, let's go to the Supreme Court's radical Dobbs 
decision. When you read it, it is really clear that multiple 
Supreme Court Justices lied to get confirmed. You cannot square 
what the majority said in Dobbs with the statements by Justices 
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
    Now, let's look what this opinion said, one of the reasons 
that they overturned Roe v. Wade is they said that the 
Constitution makes no reference to abortion.
    So, Professor Murray, let me ask you this question: Does 
the Constitution make any reference to birth control pills?
    Ms. Murray. No, it does not.
    Mr. Lieu. So, under the Supreme Court's radical far-right 
opinion, they could give politicians the power to decide who 
can get birth control pills, isn't that right?
    Ms. Murray. That is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. Yes. Professor Murray, does the Constitution make 
any reference to condoms?
    Ms. Murray. No.
    Mr. Lieu. So, under the Supreme Court's radical opinion, 
these Justices could give politicians the power to ban condoms, 
isn't that right?
    Ms. Murray. It is possible, yes.
    Mr. Lieu. Legal Director Warbelow, a question for you. Does 
the Constitution make any reference to gay marriage?
    Ms. Warbelow. It does not. My apologies. It does not.
    Mr. Lieu. Under the Supreme Court's radical decision, they 
could give politicians the right to ban gay marriage, isn't 
that right?
    Ms. Warbelow. Certainly, Justice Thomas invited those 
challenges and is welcoming the opportunity to revisit those 
questions by the Court.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
    Does the Constitution make any reference to interracial 
marriage?
    Ms. Warbelow. It does not.
    Mr. Lieu. So, under the Supreme Court's radical decision, 
they could certainly give politicians the right to decide 
whether or not to ban interracial marriage, isn't that right?
    Ms. Warbelow. That is the invitation that has been made.
    Mr. Lieu. You know what the Constitution does make 
reference to, by the way? A well-regulated militia. I hope the 
Supreme Court actually looks at that phrase and actually 
adheres to it. That is another matter.
    So, let's return now to this issue. Under the Dobbs 
decision, the Supreme Court Justices said that Roe was 
egregiously wrong from the start. That means Justices Gorsuch 
and Kavanaugh had to have known that during their confirmation 
hearings because Roe v. Wade was decided 50 years ago.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield for 
exactly what the Justices said--
    Mr. Lieu. Nope.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. --in their confirmation hearing? 
Yes, I didn't think so.
    Mr. Lieu. Did any of them say Roe v. Wade was egregiously 
wrong from the start? No, they didn't. In fact, they said the 
opposite.
    They could have done what Justice Thomas did, which was 
really not talk about it. They could have said, ``I'm not going 
to talk about Roe v. Wade.'' They could have said, ``I'm not 
going to answer your question.''
    That is not what Justice Kavanaugh did. He went above and 
beyond to intentionally mislead the American people. He even 
went and talked about Casey. Do you know what he said about 
Casey? He said, Casey is ``precedent on top of precedent.'' He 
was trying to give assurances to the U.S. Senate and the 
American public that he was not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. 
The same with Justice Gorsuch.
    They didn't have to do that, right? They could have done 
what other Justices did. They could have given themselves 
wiggle room; be silent; say, ``I'm not going to answer your 
question.'' They didn't. They lied. They specifically lied to 
the American people and to the U.S. Senate. That is why 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and I have written a letter to the 
U.S. Senate asking them to make a finding on whether Justices 
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to the American people.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, those words should be 
struck.
    Chair Nadler. The time--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You cannot accuse a Supreme Court 
Justice of lying--
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Buck? Mr. Buck?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have a point of 
order.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his point of order.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Can a Member of this Committee 
accuse a Supreme Court Justice of lying under oath without 
evidence?
    Chair Nadler. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is acceptable under the 
rules? Okay.
    Chair Nadler. Yes. The rules--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay. All right.
    Chair Nadler. Yes. The rules on personalities which apply 
to other Members, which apply to other Members of the House do 
not apply to anyone outside the House.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. How unfortunate for them.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the exact 
quotations of what these Supreme Court Justices said--
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. --thank you--in their 
confirmations.
    [The information follows:]



      

                        MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA

                             FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Buck?
    Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    In the early morning of June 26th of this year, the Life 
Choices Center in my district was attacked and a fire was 
started inside. On the outside wall, the arsonist spray-painted 
``If abortions aren't safe, neither are you.''
    According to its website, Life Choices is a Christ-centered 
ministry that offers free services related to pregnancy and 
sexual health, information on reversing the effects of abortion 
pills, and post-abortion support for guilt, shame, anxiety, and 
depression.
    The radical left today is more violent than ever--with more 
than 50 attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches 
since May. Rather than putting a stop to the violence, the 
Biden Administration and its Department of Justice refused to 
condemn it and are even suggesting it is abortionists that are 
under attack and in need of protection.
    This is far from the first time the left has used violence 
in their push to incite a progressive revolution in America. 
From the assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh to 
growing attacks from Black Lives Matter and Antifa on the back 
of mass riots, vandalism, and arson in 2020, the left has all 
too often chosen violence--with elected Democrats and pundits 
all too happy to run for cover with the extremists in their own 
ranks.
    As Jane's Revenge, a leftist group that took credit for 
fire-bombing pregnancy centers in Wisconsin, New York, and 
Oregon, said, ``It's open season on America's pro-life 
institutions.'' Other groups even putting bounties on 
conservative Supreme Court Justices.
    Meanwhile, DOJ continues to target conservatives, including 
nine pro-life activists in February for protesting in front of 
an abortion clinic, something normally treated as nuisance 
trespass, but which is being treated as a serious felony for 
those protestors.
    My friends across the aisle seem to think they can bend 
reality to their own whims, if they only repeat the same 
radical talking points long enough.
    In the meantime, the rule of law and pro-life Americans' 
constitutional rights to freedom of speech and religion are 
under attack. Americans deserve better. The progressives 
driving this violence, and the national politicians and media 
outlets egging it on, threaten all of us.
    In 2020, rioters caused more than a billion dollars in 
damage and more than 20 people lost their lives. So far, we 
have been lucky, but if this keeps up, someone is going to lose 
their life, and God forbid, when that happens, the Democrats 
running for cover will have no one to blame but themselves.
    Ms. Foster, I served on the board of the Northern Colorado 
Genesis Project. It is a nonprofit agency that provides care, 
counseling, financial support, housing for pregnant women.
    How many women and children are served every year by 
pregnancy resource and crisis centers in this country?
    Ms. Foster. Many millions.
    Mr. Buck. What kind of care do they receive?
    Ms. Foster. All kinds of care. Material support, resources, 
training, housing if needed, diapers, clothes, formula, you 
name it, if the woman is in need of it. Seventy-six percent of 
women say that they would choose to parent if their 
circumstances were different. So, this hearing should be about 
making those circumstances different, helping them improve 
their circumstances and find a fulfilling life.
    Mr. Buck. That same statistic, I would assume, includes 
adoption, the ability for a woman to make a choice about having 
a baby and then giving that baby to a family that cannot have 
children?
    Ms. Foster. Actually, it doesn't. That would be above and 
beyond the 76 percent.
    Mr. Buck. Great. So, some of these are religious 
institutions and some are not. Is that true?
    Ms. Foster. That's true, yes.
    Mr. Buck. The secular institutions, do they receive 
taxpayer funding at all for their services?
    Ms. Foster. The vast majority of pregnancy centers are 
entirely volunteer, are funded by donations.
    Mr. Buck. How does the violence that we have seen recently 
in this country impact the services to women who--and some of 
them may still choose to have an abortion, but they are at 
least going to ask the question and try to gain information to 
make an informed decision. How does the violence impact the 
women and the services that are being provided to those women?
    Ms. Foster. Yes, at least they find out what resources are 
available for them. Actually, a couple of days ago I was 
privileged to go visit one of those pregnancy centers here in 
DC that was tragically vandalized and they were sharing that 
they had to hire security. They were spending donor funds on 
security instead of just being able to give all that money to 
the women who really need the care and the support.
    Mr. Buck. How does the Biden Administration's lack of 
support impact that?
    Ms. Foster. They need funding. They need more ability to 
get to those women.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman is expired.
    Ms. Jayapal?
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I find it stunning that 
we are being lectured on what violence is and what extremist by 
colleagues, some of whom have fueled that very violence by not 
condemning the January 6th insurrection, by defending and 
potentially even--according to the January 6th Committee 
hearings, potentially even being involved in that insurrection, 
that violent coup to overturn our democracy.
    Let me go to the matter at hand, which is the horrendous 
revocation of human rights that have caused people in nine 
States across the country to lose access to abortion and with 
another 11 States that have restricted access or are expected 
to by the absolutely outrageous overturning of Roe v. Wade by 
this radical extremist Republican-controlled Supreme Court.
    Justice Thomas laid out a blueprint to take away more 
rights from the American people so that this threat to our 
rights is no longer hypothetical.
    Now, I am a woman of color who has had an abortion, who is 
in a loving interracial marriage, and has an amazing trans 
daughter. This is a direct threat to me, my loved ones, and 
most importantly to millions of people across this country who 
face one or more of these many threats that have been unveiled 
by the Dobbs decision and everything that could follow.
    These rights could begin to fall as soon as this October, 
which is why I introduced the Protecting Access to 
Contraception Act with Representative Mike Thompson and working 
tirelessly with my Democratic colleagues to protect all the 
other rights that are endangered by the Supreme Court's 
decision.
    Americans' constitutional right to privacy was examined for 
the first time in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut 
which established the right to birth control and is the 
precedent upon which abortion and many LGBTQ rights have been 
based. The conservative opinion that overturned Roe has now 
suggested that somehow there were problems in the legal 
reasoning of that precedent.
    Ms. Warbelow, what happens when the Supreme Court, a 
conservative Supreme Court, suddenly starts basing its 
jurisprudence on supposed procedurals of precedents that have 
been long-established?
    Ms. Warbelow. It very much encourages State legislators to 
try to pass laws to undermine and undo these precedents. This 
is not conjecture. This has already happened. We have seen 
States in the wake of Obergefell attempt to eliminate marriage 
for all couples as a right within their State. We have seen 
legislators try to reaffirm their bans on same-sex couples 
marrying. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, we saw a State in 
a filing to the 11th Circuit challenge the centuries--century-
old right to parental autonomy. These are not conjecture. These 
are real examples that are happening and will continue to 
happen.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
    Professor Murray, antiabortion groups like Americans United 
for Life support revoking to in vitro fertilization and 
contraceptive measures like Plan B and IUDs. To make sure that 
the American people are aware of this radical Republican agenda 
can you expand on how the conservative right is trying to take 
away the right to contraception and other reproductive care?
    Ms. Murray. Is that a question for me, Representative 
Jayapal?
    Ms. Jayapal. Yes.
    Ms. Murray. I'm sorry.
    Ms. Jayapal. Yes.
    Ms. Murray. I'm sorry. The internet is warbling a little.
    Yes, the real question after Dobbs is what counts as an 
abortion? The pro-life movement has for years sought to 
characterize certain forms of long-acting contraceptives as 
abortifacient. So, Plan B for example, intrauterine devices, 
which are increasingly common among women in the United States. 
All of these have been classed as abortifacients and indeed the 
Supreme Court has blessed them as abortifacients in Justice 
Alito's opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby from 2014. So, the 
real question is what is an abortion? They have said that these 
forms of contraception are, in fact, abortions.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Professor Murray.
    Let me just say that the inaction of the Senate because of 
the Jim Crow filibuster has left this giant vacuum where an 
extremist radical Republican-controlled Supreme Court is set--
not only have they overturned the precedent of 50 years for 
women and pregnant people across this country to have control 
over our own lives, to keep people out of our bedrooms and our 
decisions, but now we are set to see a whole set of new rights 
taken away from Americans. That cannot proceed and we must make 
sure--
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady is expired.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Democrats have a 
radical view of abortion. Former Virginia Governor talking 
about third trimester--Northam, Ralph Northam talking about 
third trimester abortions said,

        I can tell you exactly what would happen: The infant would be 
        delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant 
        would be resuscitated if that is what the mother and the family 
        desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the 
        physicians and the mother.

That is pretty extreme.
    Yesterday, in the Oversight Committee, a Witness was asked 
about infanticide and the Witness said, ``well, healthcare is a 
right.'' That is pretty radical.
    The U.S. is radical on abortion led by the Democrats, the 
top--within the top four percent of most permissive policies in 
the world. Same as China. China has no restrictions. North 
Korea has no restrictions. Vietnam has no restrictions in law.
    What about the EU? We keep hearing about the EU and maybe 
we should follow their model. Well, let's go over what some of 
those countries have. France, only up to 14 weeks; Germany to 
12 weeks; Greece, 12; Hungary, 12; Ireland, 12; Italy, 12; 
Latvia, Lithuania, and Luxembourg, all only up to 12 weeks. 
Malta, there is no abortion permissible. Spain, up to 14 weeks; 
Sweden up to 18 weeks. The U.S. is pretty doggone--an outlier 
in the world thanks to the leftist policies of the Democrat 
Party.
    So, the Democrats have a real extreme radical view of 
abortion, and they use it and enforce it with fear. Here's one: 
New York Times op-ed tells the Democrats to embrace the 
politics of fear. When it comes to abortion rights, Democrats 
need to lean into the politics of fear. The party needs to 
scare voters and show that they too are scared, scared of the 
voters themselves. That's what Democrats are writing.
    Elizabeth Warren says to shut down all pregnancy centers. 
She said look, we need to shut them down here in Massachusetts 
and we need to shut them down all around the country.
    So, I know folks have been talking about--the Ranking 
Member talked about 50, but I get one of these trackers every 
day. It is 57, 57 crisis pregnancy centers that have been 
attacked. That doesn't even include the recent Bethesda church 
that was attacked last weekend. According to my close friend of 
mine who lives in Portland telling me about eight churches in 
the last few weeks that have been attacked. That doesn't 
include that. That is the politics of fear.
    How about the reported ShutDownDC offering up to $250 just 
to track and sight and harass Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, 
Thomas, Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and John Roberts?
    How about this one? Yesterday one of our own colleagues who 
sits on this Committee, also sits on OGR, said asking of a 
Witness,

        I'm worried about this. It was the founder of the Republican 
        Party President Lincoln who said a house divided against itself 
        cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure 
        permanently half slave and half free.

Then he asked,

        Can we endure half-free choice States and half-fee theocratic 
        compelled pregnancy States? Is that going to work for America?

    I don't know. Was he likening the abortion issue to slavery 
or was he likening it to creating an insurrection in the 
country. I don't know. That is wild.
    Ms. Foster, when I look at it, I see the radical, radical 
position of Democrats on abortion. Tomorrow the House will be 
voting on the Women's Health Reproduction Act of 2022 and 
supporters of the bill claim it will simply, simply codify Roe. 
That isn't true. Can you explain what this bill actually does?
    Ms. Foster. That bill would strip away every protection for 
children in the womb. It would strip away protections for their 
mothers and--and also for healthcare providers. It would strip 
away conscience protections. It would strip away informed 
consent. It would strip away any gestational age limitations 
allowing for abortion up to the baby's birthday. It would take 
away everything that we've built for 49 years, since Roe.
    Mr. Biggs. We would then become the most radical abortion 
nation in the world, more radical than China, North Korea, or 
Vietnam, which have no limitations. Is that fair to say?
    Ms. Foster. It is fair, yes.
    Mr. Buck. Democrats are radical and extreme on abortion. 
This bill is just another attempt by Democrats to expand 
abortion, override State laws enacted to protect the unborn. 
Life is the most precious thing we are given and everyone 
especially the unborn deserves that right.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I do want to first challenge just one of the misleading 
talking points that our colleagues across the aisle and their 
Witness have been pushing today, that the existence of 
pregnancy crisis care centers are somehow evidence that the 
antiabortion movement actually cares about mothers and 
families. It is just not true.
    In fact, these crisis pregnancy centers are a well-funded 
arm of the anti-abortion movement that advances their agenda by 
using deceptive and coercive tactics and medical disinformation 
to target low-income people facing unintended pregnancies to 
prevent them from accessing abortion and contraception.
    These crisis pregnancy centers, which actually outnumber 
abortion clinics, often misleadingly present themselves as 
providing medical services when they are not licensed to do so 
and therefore are not bound by the privacy laws that govern 
medical providers. In fact, these antiabortion facilities 
collect sensitive medical and personal information and then 
share it with antiabortion organizations.
    These crisis pregnancy centers face limited public 
accountability despite the fact that they are increasingly 
siphoning off public funds from the TANF welfare programs, 
which are supposed to serve low-income women and families.
    Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to introduce a study by 
the Alliance of State Advocates for Women's Rights and Gender 
Equality entitled, ``Designed to Deceive: A Study of the Crisis 
Pregnancy Center Industry in Nine States,'' including 
Pennsylvania.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MS. SCANLON FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Returning to the subject at hand, we are here in the wake 
of the deeply unpopular Supreme Court Dobbs decision to 
overturn Roe v. Wade and with it 50 years of settled law 
regarding the fundamental privacy right of women to make their 
own decisions regarding their own healthcare.
    I don't think we can underestimate the impact that the 
Dobbs decision will have upon the health and welfare of women 
and their families in this country, and upon the economic 
health and welfare of this country as a whole by giving the 
green light to States to ban abortion, as many have rushed to 
do in the wake of this decision. The suggestion that the 
decision has now been left to the people is fundamentally 
disingenuous given the fact that the Senate is blocking any 
such legislation with the filibuster.
    The Dobbs decision goes against the values of a strong 
majority of Americans that a woman should have the essential 
freedom to decide when and if to bear children and how many and 
that politicians should not be in the business of mandating 
that women carry dangerous or unintended pregnancies to term.
    The vast majority of Americans understand that we don't 
need or want politicians invading our doctors' offices and that 
a woman's privacy--invading our doctors' offices or a woman's 
privacy to impose an extremist minority view when the reality 
is these decisions are complicated. They are complicated by the 
mental and financial health of a family. They are complicated 
by the physical health of both the woman and the fetus. They 
are complicated by whether or not the pregnancy was the result 
of abuse or criminal activity. They are complicated by the fact 
that our society for decades has prioritized the well-being of 
unborn fetuses over that of children and families, and even the 
health of pregnant women.
    So, unfortunately, the ramifications of this extremist 
decision do not end there. In overturning Roe v. Wade, the 
Court has called into question a host of other privacy rights 
that Americans have relied on for more than half a century 
including the right to obtain contraception, the right to 
interracial and same-sex marriage.
    Professor Murray, many of my constituents have questions 
about the ramifications of Justice Alito's decision and Justice 
Thomas' concurrence in Dobbs with respect to these fundamental 
privacy rights beyond a woman's freedom to make her own 
reproductive healthcare decisions. Can you help us explain, in 
plain English, why those opinions raise alarms about other 
fundamental rights of self-determination?
    Ms. Murray. Happily. Those opinions all proceed from the 
same grant of liberty in the 14th Amendment. This grant of 
liberty, as I said before, comes from this reconstruction era, 
the reconstruction amendment's commitment to an antislavery 
epic including providing the formerly enslaved with rights of 
bodily autonomy, control over their own reproduction, and of 
course the ability to control their family lives.
    When Roe was overturned and the right to privacy was 
casually dismissed by this conservative 6-3 supermajority, it 
unsettled all of these precedents and the majority's efforts to 
confine its decision to just abortion is frankly gaslighting. 
There is no way to confine that logic to just abortion. If Roe 
is egregiously wrong because it is not rooted in the traditions 
of this country and because it is not explicit in the text of 
the Constitution, all these other rights are equally in peril. 
All of them proceed from the same logic and they are all on the 
same path as Roe is.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Foster, does the Dobbs decision ban abortions?
    Ms. Foster. It does not.
    Mr. McClintock. Does it limit abortion?
    Ms. Foster. It does not.
    Mr. McClintock. Does it say anything about abortions beyond 
that it simply can't find such a right in the Constitution?
    Ms. Foster. It does not.
    Mr. McClintock. If a State chose to legalize unrestricted 
abortions on demand is there anything in Dobbs that would 
prevent it from doing so?
    Ms. Foster. Clearly not. We've seen States doing that.
    Mr. McClintock. I think the central question that both 
sides here are considering is whether Congress has the 
authority to adopt a Federal law concerning abortion, either 
restricting it, banning it, or allowing it. Is there anything 
in the Dobbs decision that would prevent Congress from doing 
so?
    Ms. Foster. No.
    Mr. McClintock. More difficult question that I am 
struggling with is whether the Congress has the constitutional 
authority to ban, or restrict, or allow abortion, or if that is 
a matter that it leaves to the States through their elected 
representatives. What is your opinion?
    Ms. Foster. Yes, we in Americans United for Life take a 
perspective on that. We are looking for our elected 
representatives to lead and to take a strong position 
protecting life. We also expect our judges to follow the 
Constitution and protect all life in the law.
    Mr. McClintock. If Congress is given enumerated powers, I 
don't find abortion one way or another among those enumerated 
powers. Is that not therefore left to the States to decide?
    Ms. Foster. It's certainly not an enumerated power.
    Mr. McClintock. The majority of Americans tell pollsters 
that they support Roe v. Wade, but at the same time they also 
tell those pollsters that abortion should be banned after 15 
weeks. Does Roe allow restrictions on abortions after 15 weeks?
    Ms. Foster. The current regime in our country prior to 
Dobbs was that, in fact, it was almost unrestricted abortion on 
demand.
    Mr. McClintock. So, Roe would prevent restrictions on 
abortions after 15 weeks?
    Ms. Foster. It had, yes.
    Mr. McClintock. Yes. Okay. How about Dobbs? Does the Dobbs 
decision allow such restrictions?
    Ms. Foster. The Dobbs decision says that you can, in fact, 
protect women and children after 15 weeks or before 15 weeks.
    Mr. McClintock. Which is what a substantial majority of 
Americans, even though they say they oppose Roe, actually 
support. Am I right?
    Ms. Foster. Supermajority, yes.
    Mr. McClintock. Yes. I think laws have to be based on a 
broad consensus, otherwise they are ignored, or they have to 
become a precedent. I do think there is a clear consensus that 
if somebody is lying unconscious in a hospital bed and they 
have a heartbeat and a brain waive they are a human being. You 
are not allowed to kill them. Wouldn't that same principle 
apply to the beginning of life just logically?
    Ms. Foster. You would think so, but some of your colleagues 
seem to disagree.
    Mr. McClintock. Isn't it also--that is what the Mississippi 
law says?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. McClintock. As I understand it the concept of 
substantive due process rests with the Fifth and 14th 
Amendments' right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or 
property without due process of law. Now, to my layman's eye 
that seems pretty clear. You cannot be executed or jailed or 
fined without your day in court.
    Substantive due process imagines a whole range of other 
rights that are not enshrined explicitly in constitutional or 
statutory law, but rather are established by judicial decree. 
Do I understand that correctly?
    Ms. Foster. You do, yes.
    Mr. McClintock. Now, I happen to believe there is a class 
of rights that exist in nature. These are rights that are not 
created by government; rather we create governments to protect 
these preexisting rights, but to do so we still have to define 
them. We do that through our Constitution and through our 
legislatures.
    Now, we just heard from one of the Democrats' Witnesses 
that defining such rights should not be left to the elected 
representatives of the people. So, what is the alternative? 
Isn't it having unelected judges define these rights instead? 
Somebody has to define them. Do I have that right?
    Ms. Foster. Apparently so, yes.
    Mr. McClintock. So, which do you think is a safer 
repository of these rights, the people or appointed judges?
    Ms. Foster. I believe it's the people. It's the people who 
have the rights and the people we elect, our representatives to 
defend them.
    Mr. McClintock. Shouldn't respect for democracy leave these 
issues to the people through their elected representatives? 
Isn't that what Justice Thomas is saying in his dissent?
    Ms. Foster. That's exactly what he's saying.
    Mr. McClintock. The left tells us that any restriction on 
abortion forces a woman to carry a baby against their will. How 
do you respond to this?
    Ms. Foster. I believe, as I said a moment ago, that most 
women would choose to carry if we can improve their 
circumstances. That is exactly what this body should be doing.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Swalwell?
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
    Ms. Foster, do you think a 10-year-old would choose to 
carry?
    Ms. Foster. In a 10-year-old case, first the Ohio--
    Mr. Swalwell. No, my question is would a 10-year-old choose 
to carry a baby?
    Ms. Foster. In the Ohio case the--
    Mr. Swalwell. I am asking you would a 10-year-old choose 
to--
    Ms. Foster. --Ohio Attorney General said that abortion 
would have been justified.
    Mr. Swalwell. No, no. ma'am. Ma'am, focus on the question, 
please. Would a 10-year-old choose to carry a baby?
    Ms. Foster. I cannot--
    Mr. Swalwell. Do you think a 10-year-old should choose to 
carry a baby?
    Ms. Foster. I believe it would probably impact her life, 
and so therefore it would fall under any exception and would 
not be an abortion.
    Mr. Swalwell. Wait. It would not be an abortion if a 10-
year-old with her parents made a decision not to have a baby 
that was the result of a rape?
    Ms. Foster. If a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of 
rape and it was threatening her life, then that's not an 
abortion. So, it would not fall under any abortion restriction 
in our nation.
    Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Warbelow, are you familiar with 
disinforma-
tion?
    Ms. Warbelow. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Swalwell. Did you just hear some disinformation?
    Ms. Warbelow. Yes, I heard some very significant 
disinforma-
tion.
    Mr. Swalwell. Why don't you tell me about that?
    Ms. Warbelow. Yes, an abortion is a procedure. It's a 
medical procedure that individuals undergo for a wide range of 
circumstances including because they have been sexually 
assaulted; raped in the case of the 10-year-old. It doesn't 
matter whether or not there is a statutory exemption. It is 
still a medical procedure that is understood to be an abortion.
    Beyond that, I think it's also important to note that there 
is no exception for the life or the health of the mother in the 
Ohio law. That's why that 10-year-old had to cross State lines 
to receive an abortion
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Ms. Warbelow.
    Mr. Chair, yesterday Jim Jordan sent out a tweet that I 
would like to put into the record with unanimous consent, and I 
will read it in a moment.
    Chair Nadler. Read it and then I will give unanimous--
    Mr. Swalwell. It is a Washington Examiner posting that Ohio 
AG Dave Yost said, ``his office has not found any evidence of a 
10-year-old rape victim in the State,'' who according to a 
report cited by President Joe Biden was six weeks pregnant and 
traveled to Indiana to receive an abortion. Mr. Jordan's 
statement was, ``Another lie. Anyone surprised?''
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    Mr. Swalwell. I would also like to put into the record from 
today's Wall Street Journal from the Editorial Board, 
``Correcting the Record on a Rape Case.'' It is the journal 
correcting its own misstatement the day before.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                      MR. SWALWELL FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Swalwell. So yesterday, Ms. Warbelow, speaking of 
disinformation, Jim Jordan called a 10-year-old rape victim a 
liar. A 10-year-old rape victim was called a liar by the 
Ranking Member of this Committee. I know that he did that 
because he hates the President. It is clear every day from his 
statements and the statements from MAGA Republicans that they 
don't like Joe Biden, so they are going to call him a liar. 
That is fine.
    What is worse is the reason that he did it is because he 
doesn't like what that rape victim represents, which is that 
this law from the Supreme Court, Dobbs, and the laws that will 
follow in States like Ohio, Texas, Georgia, and other States 
will bring us government-mandated pregnancies for 10-year-olds, 
fourth graders, little girls. To deflect from that they choose 
to bully and beat up transgender individuals who represent 
fewer than one percent of Americans. They try and deflect that 
because they don't want anyone in America to realize that they 
don't just want to wage a war on women; they are now expanding 
it to a war on little girls.
    So, Ms. Warbelow, let's go back to where we started here. 
Can a little girl, should a little girl make the decision to 
have a forced government pregnancy? Should she ever be put in 
that position?
    Ms. Warbelow. She should have the opportunity, in 
consultation with her parents and her medical providers, to 
make the decision that is in her best interest.
    Mr. Swalwell. Under this current law does she have the 
opportunity to make that decision?
    Ms. Warbelow. She does not under Ohio law.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Chair, again this is not about someone's 
ability to make a kitchen table decision with their family. It 
is about MAGA Republicans who want to control not just women, 
but little girls and to put us into an era of government-
mandated pregnancies without the opportunity to make that 
important kitchen table decision that will affect them for the 
rest of their life. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Steube?
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The majority starts the hearing with the lie that there is 
a constitutional right to killing unborn children. There never 
has been that right and nowhere in our founding documents or 
the Constitution does a constitutional right exist to murder an 
unborn child. In fact, the opposite is present, and Mr. 
McClintock touched on it, but I am going to elaborate.
    In the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution there 
is a constitutional right for any person to not be deprived of 
life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In two 
different amendments. Certainly, an unborn child is a person; 
I'm not sure what else it would be, and I am tested to see if 
the other side is going to ignore the science that the child in 
the womb is not a person. Therefore, that person shall not be 
deprived of life pursuant to our Constitution and certainly not 
the opposite where they can be murdered. There has been a lot 
of talk today about freedom, and there is no freedom to murder 
an innocent life, a person that was duly recognized under our 
Constitution.
    The majority of the Supreme Court made this clear in 
stating, and I quote, on page 25 of the opinion,

        Its inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not 
        deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. On the 
        contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain 
        of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the 
        common law until 1973.

Then on page 69 of the opinion they hold,

        We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right 
        to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled and the authority 
        to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their 
        elected representatives.

    Since Roe v. Wade, over 63 million children have been 
slaughtered in an incorrectly decided decision, but finally, 
the issue has been returned to the elected representatives 
where it belongs. To right this wrong and give back the right 
to life guaranteed to every person in our Constitution. We 
should be thankful today for the Supreme Court's decision in 
Dobbs and everyone who made it possible, and that includes our 
Witness today, Ms. Foster.
    I want to thank you for your commitment to life and the 
work that led to the decision in Dobbs and I want to personally 
thank you for your courage for being here. I know it is tough 
up here, but know that hundreds of millions of Americans stand 
behind you, that we are praying for you, and that there is a 
large amount of support out there for you.
    I had a list of questions for you, but a couple of 
questions ago Ms. Scanlon leveled a host of inaccurate 
disinformation about pregnancy centers, and so I would like to 
give you the remaining time that I have left if you would like 
to respond to any of that or I can ask you the questions that I 
have for you, whichever direction you would like to go.
    Ms. Foster. There's a lot I would like to respond to.
    Mr. Steube. You have got two minutes and 16 seconds to 
respond.
    Ms. Foster. Great. Yes, first, Representative Scanlon seems 
to be almost talking about Planned Parenthood when she's 
talking about pregnancy centers. Deceptive, well-funded, 
coercive, that defines Planned Parenthood, and it defines big 
abortion. It seems to me that she's getting her information 
from the same place that a previous representative did on her 
info about my organization, because, in fact, we don't take a 
stance on contraception. So, that would be something that I 
would certainly recommend looking further into.
    Then further than that, pre-teen pregnancies, they are high 
risk and they fit the life exception. So, that isn't actually 
an abortion because the primary intent is to save the girl's 
life. An abortion is the intentional ending of a human life in 
the womb prior to birth, and that's not what would be going on 
there.
    I ask, really, how do we know about this little girl? 
Instead of re-victimizing her in front of the nation here in 
Congress, on C-SPAN why aren't we talking about the real issue 
here? Why aren't we talking about rape? Why aren't we talking 
about holding her rapist accountable? Instead, abortion and 
rape are both symptoms of the same violent ideology that says 
that we can violate others to achieve our own goals and fulfill 
our own desires.
    I work alongside people who've experienced the most 
horrific sexual violence imaginable and they understand that 
transcending these ills and overcoming them starts by refusing 
to perpetuate or to justify further violence. That is what this 
hearing should be about. We should be talking about that. We 
should be talking about helping women, giving women the 
resources that we need.
    We need to be talking about how we can work together in a 
bipartisan way to help our nation's people, to help all 
Americans and make sure that we all have equal rights, equal 
human dignity. Instead, we're just casting stones and throwing 
spears and trying to intimidate the Supreme Court into 
regretting a decision that is completely constitutional and 
restores America's most fundamental human right to life.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you for being here today.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Garcia?
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you for bringing 
us together for this very important, very critical hearing.
    I want to thank all the Witnesses for being here today.
    Justice Thomas has de facto given the green light for the 
conservative-controlled States in our nation to continue a 
crusade against the liberties and freedoms of every individual 
that is not male, White, and straight. They started with women, 
throwing us back to the Dark Ages, treating us as property and 
cattle, forcing us to give birth against our will, treating us 
as subjects and handmaids at the service of the government. 
Next, it will go against gays, lesbians, transgender 
individuals, and the LGBTQ community.
    In Texas, the Republican Attorney General has already 
expressed no uncertain--in no uncertain terms that he has the 
full intention of litigating in favor of overturning Lawrence 
v. Texas.
    Now, this case started in my district. Back then, it was in 
1988, the arrest of--Mr. Lawrence was a resident of what is now 
my district, and it was all about keeping the government's 
reach outside of people's bedrooms and their intimate life--
lives where it should stay. It is regrettable that our Attorney 
General is already, already thinking about doing something 
about that.
    Republicans who claim to believe in small government, in 
their never-ending hypocrisy, are weaponizing the State to 
criminalize the most intimate aspects of our lives. What 
happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of their 
homes is no one's business.
    Religion is not a basis for public policy. I am a Catholic, 
but we must keep our rosaries for prayer and not to restrain 
from their liberties.
    I thank the Witnesses for coming and I want to start with 
you, Professor Murray. Is it extreme that antiabortion 
activists have been responsible for at least 11 murders, 26 
attempted murders, 42 bombings, 194 arsons, and thousands of 
incidents of criminal activities directed at abortion providers 
since 1977?
    Ms. Murray. It is extreme. I find it really interesting 
that the Republicans in this hearing have emphasized the 
protests against the Supreme Court Justices and individuals 
exercising their First Amendment rights in a peaceful manner, 
when, in fact, we have since 1977 a long history of actual 
violence against those who provide abortions and those who seek 
abortion care.
    I will also note that in 2014, the Supreme Court of the 
United States in McCullen v. Coakley invalidated a law that the 
people of Massachusetts enacted through their legislature to 
provide a 35-foot buffer zone between abortion clinics and 
protesters so that individuals could enter those clinics in a 
peaceful manner to make decisions about their healthcare. The 
Supreme Court invalidated that, subjecting those individuals to 
the protests and disagreements and, in often many cases, the 
intimidation of those who oppose abortion.
    Ms. Garcia. So, that is part of the hypocrisy? They don't 
want a buffer zone at abortion providers centers, but they want 
some type of buffer zone around their homes when they are 
eating? Should we just make them a little bubble boys and girls 
so that they can just go and be protected in a bubble?
    Ms. Murray. The Court emphasized that the protesters at 
abortion clinics were exercising their First Amendment rights 
in a peaceful manner. I do not condone violence in any way, but 
I agree with the Court that those who wish to exercise their 
First Amendment right peaceably should be able to do so.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, I agree with you. I don't condone any 
violence. I, in fact, am a former judge and I have had death 
threats, but I just feel that I have always had law 
enforcement, I have always had people who can protect you. 
People have a right to protest. They have a right to be there, 
particularly if they are staying in public sidewalks. So, thank 
you for that.
    Do you think that there is anything that would--I keep 
hearing this whole notion of it needs to go back to the elected 
representatives. Well last time I checked I was an elected 
representative.
    Ms. Murray. That is exactly right, Representative Garcia. I 
want to correct Representative McClintock's statement that this 
does not auger the prospect of a Federal ban on abortion. 
Justice Kavanaugh on pages 2 and 3 of this concurring opinion 
in Dobbs makes clear that this simply returns this issue to the 
prospect of democratic deliberation in the States and Congress. 
That those are the words of this opinion. This will surely come 
to Congress if there is a Republican majority.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Chair, I want to--for the record introduce the National 
Abortion Federation Centers' report dated May 19, 2022, listing 
all the violence against abortion providers since 1977.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MS. GARCIA FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    Ms. Garcia. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Tiffany?
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you.
    Ms. Warbelow, did you have personal security to attend here 
today?
    Ms. Warbelow. I did not, but I do have security as part of 
my job.
    Mr. Tiffany. Okay. Thank you for that question or thank you 
for that answer.
    Ms. Foster, we heard about targeting low-income people. 
Could you give us just a brief tutorial on Margaret Sanger and 
Planned Parenthood and their history?
    Ms. Foster. Margaret Sanger is one of the most noted 
eugenicists in our nation's history, if not the world's 
history. She believed in targeting minority populations, 
believed in targeting populations with disabilities, all kinds 
of just backwards undemocratic thinking.
    She also founded Planned Parenthood which today does the 
lion's share, performs the lion's share of all abortions in 
America.
    Mr. Tiffany. Isn't it true that Nazi Germany actually 
invited her ilk to their country pre-World War II?
    Ms. Foster. They did.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. What effect would the--you talked earlier 
about the so-called Women's Health Protection Act of 2022 that 
failed in the United States Senate. Could you comment on the 
impact on State governments that this bill would have?
    Ms. Foster. It would even go beyond Roe. Roe stripped away 
protections in all 50 States, even the States that had already 
moved to liberalize abortion law. It stripped away protections 
in every single State, predications like informed consent, 
protections like if--you name it. If it was on the books, it 
was gone.
    This Women's Health Protection Act, which is incredibly 
deceptively named--they talk about disinformation. It's not 
about health or protection. It has nothing to do with the good 
of women. That bill would strip away every protection that's 
been put on the books in American history. It would strip away 
the ability to see our own ultrasounds. If we asked to see our 
own ultrasounds, that can be denied us.
    Again, it would strip away informed consent, any kind of 
protection on late-term abortion, which of course as we know is 
far more dangerous for the woman, a much higher maternal 
mortality rate. It would strip away protections on chemical 
abortion, which is even more dangerous than a surgical abortion 
when it comes to hemorrhage and sepsis. You name it, it's on 
the chopping block.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, would it remove parental consent?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Okay. So, we heard some rhetoric earlier about 
protecting little girls. So, in other words, me as parents--my 
wife and I was parents--so, in other words, if we had an 
underage daughter, that would remove us from the picture. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. Foster. It sure would, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Does it limit the healthcare information? Does 
this bill limit healthcare information that can be provided to 
pregnant women?
    Ms. Foster. The Women's Health Protection Act does. When 
we're talking about informed consent, women don't even have the 
right to get the facts about the abortion, the procedure that 
they're about to undergo.
    Mr. Tiffany. Basically, what you were saying earlier?
    Ms. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. So, I want to thank the Chair yesterday 
for clarifying the Democrat Party's position in regards to the 
Hyde Amendment.
    For those of you not familiar, the Hyde Amendment--
    Chair Nadler. You are welcome.
    Mr. Tiffany. --the Hyde Amendment prevents taxpayer dollars 
from being used for abortions. So, in other words, you should 
pay for it. If you have--let's say you have a conscience. Let's 
say for conscience reasons, you say that you do not want to pay 
for an abortion, that would all go away. It is terribly 
unfortunate because we saw many Democrats over the previous 
decades that did have strong conscience provisions, that 
believed in the Hyde Amendment, and our Chair has made it very 
clear that the Democrat Party's position is that you shall pay 
for abortions if they are going to set the law here in our 
country.
    I just want to close with this, and I want to address the 
young people that are here today. Thank you so much for joining 
us for this hearing. I want to talk to you about the history of 
the Republican Party.
    We were formed in 1954. We were the original single-issue 
party, and that was to end slavery. That was accomplished in 
our country. We did it over the--well, we ended up fighting a 
war over it. We are now here to protect life once again. It is 
now the Republican Party that stands for life in America.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. McBath?
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair.
    We have spent countless years listening to questions about 
women's personal freedoms from individuals with extreme views, 
questions from individuals in this body who have already 
expressed by their actions and their rhetoric that the will of 
the American people should just simply be ignored. After all 
the years of attacks on Roe v. Wade, after years of 
disingenuous questions and deceitful politics, I believe that 
it is time that those who have advocated for the overturning of 
a woman's right to choose to answer some questions of their 
own.
    Does a 12-year-old girl, a middle schooler, who attends 
after school programs because her parents work late, who is 
viciously raped on her walk home from school--should she have 
access to an abortion? Or must she be forced to carry that 
fetus to term for nine months, to wake up every morning to 
bouts of morning sickness, to shake in fear every time she is 
touched, the growing bump in her belly a reminder each day of 
the unimaginable trauma she has suffered, memories she cannot 
escape and a feeling she may never feel clean or whole again?
    Does a mother who has struggled to get pregnant, who has 
just gone in for a prenatal checkup and has been told the 
heartbreaking truth that her child will be stillborn upon 
delivery, that no matter what she does or not matter how hard 
she prays, her desire for motherhood will once again be denied. 
Should her doctors be allowed to treat her miscarriage? Or must 
she be forced to carry her fetus to term, to grapple with the 
pain, the anguish, the devastation she feels being asked by 
passersby in public how far along she is, or enduring comments 
on how beautiful she looks as an expectant mother and how 
excited she must be for the arrival of her newborn child?
    Does a sophomore who plays varsity soccer and hopes to play 
in college one day, who is excited to go to prom in a few 
months and just had sex for the first time, who can't seem to 
understand why her shirts keep getting tighter, she finds 
herself with her head in the toilet one night vomiting 
seemingly for no reason at all and as her father comes to check 
on her, he startles her, she looks into his eyes, which are 
filled with tears, they both recognize that she is pregnant and 
that she no more than a mere child herself will be forced to 
give birth to one. Does she have the right to an abortion? Or 
will she be forced to feel the guilt and shame she believes she 
has caused her parents and her loved ones for realizing that 
college may no longer be an option for her or that her future, 
her dreams are deferred?
    In other words, I would like to ask my Republican 
colleagues, do you support abortion in the first trimester? Do 
you support abortion in the case of rape or incest? Do you 
support abortion if it risks the life of the mother? Do you 
support abortion in the case of fetal abnormalities? Do you 
believe all abortion is murder? If so, do you believe 
miscarriage is manslaughter? Do you believe women should face 
criminal penalties for seeking an abortion? Do you think 
doctors should be put in jail for providing them? Do you 
support a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions?
    The reason we will never hear a response to these simple 
questions is that they know the answers they give Americans 
will find extreme and disturbing. They know that forcing women 
to have children without their consent is not a position that 
the American people find palatable. They know that forcing 
women to carry a dead fetus to term will not win them the 
support that they desire because what this decision takes from 
us women is our freedom, the freedom to choose our own 
destinies, the freedom to pursue the happiness that we envision 
for ourselves.
    There are legislators across America telling women that for 
nine months that they are mere subjects of the State, that 
their bodies belong to the whims of an all-mighty government, 
that the liberty our Creator endowed with us is no longer a 
self-evident truth, that the autonomy and independence God has 
given us has been stripped away by mere men. There is no 
freedom for a woman unless she has freedom over her own body.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Mr. Bishop?
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Foster, do laws against abortion prohibit removing a 
dead fetus from the woman?
    Ms. Foster. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Bishop. That is my understanding as well. I wanted to 
get that one out the way because that continues to be repeated 
by the other side.
    Professor Murray, you concluded your testimony, both your 
written version and the oral form, by saying that you, ``call 
on this Committee to protect these associated rights in a 
manner that is swift and absolute.'' That was your last word, 
absolute. Of course, these associated rights; you are speaking 
about several, but certainly the right to abortion. Do you mean 
by that there should be no limits on it whatsoever, that it 
should be available until birth?
    Ms. Murray. What I meant in my written testimony, 
Representative, and many thanks for the question, is that 
fundamental rights should not be left to the democratic 
process. These are fundamental rights that each individual has, 
and they should be protected as they were under the 
Constitution.
    Mr. Bishop. Do you mean that they are absolute? My 
colleagues, when we were discussing the Second Amendment the 
other week, reminded me often that no constitutional right is 
absolute, a point that I readily concede. Do you concede that 
there can be limits on the right to abortion?
    Mr. Murray. It is not a concession to say that there is no 
fundamental right that is unfettered. I teach that to my 
students every day in my constitutional law class. The Second 
Amendment rights are not unfettered. They can be subject to 
government regulation, or at least they could until quite 
recently. All fundamental rights are subject to some 
limitations.
    When I asked for this Committee to respond in a manner that 
was swift and absolute, I meant in terms of their commitment to 
protecting the rights of every person in the United States to 
enjoy these fundamental freedoms and not have their most 
intimate decisions made by the government.
    Mr. Bishop. Do you support the Women's Health Protection 
Act that is pending; that is what it is called by its sponsors; 
you have heard it referred to today and I imagine you are 
familiar with it, that would allow abortion until the moment of 
birth?
    Ms. Murray. Representative, I think that's a 
mischaracterization of the Women's Health Protective Act. I am 
supportive of any measure that this chamber takes to assure the 
rights of individuals to be free in this country and to enjoy 
the equality that is promised to us under the 14th Amendment to 
the Constitution, and I'm happy to elaborate if you'd like.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, let me clear away the--you said it is a 
mischaracterization of the bill; I don't think it is, but let 
me just ask you more directly: Do you favor the Congress 
providing that abortion shall be protected until the moment of 
birth?
    Ms. Murray. I don't believe that abortion care allows for 
abortion until the moment of birth. That's not how this works. 
Individuals have the right to select an abortion and when 
individuals do choose a late-term abortion, it's usually 
because something tragic has happened in a pregnancy that was 
very much wanted.
    My point that this is a mischaracterization is that you are 
using inflammatory language to essentially damn those who 
choose to have a late-term abortion, often because there are 
very few choices available to them because something tragic has 
happened in the course of a very much wanted pregnancy. That's 
my point.
    Mr. Bishop. Should the rights of the unborn be weighed in 
the consideration of whether to allow a late-term abortion?
    Ms. Murray. Well, I would respectfully note that in this 
Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 the 
Court allowed the State--
    Mr. Bishop. Well, rather than go back into the 
Constitution, I am really just getting your advice because you 
are advising--
    Ms. Murray. I'm sorry, we're not talking about the 
Constitution.
    Mr. Bishop. No, I am interested in your advice to the 
Committee about--that you concluded your--that you urged the 
Committee to protect these rights. I am asking not so much for 
a history of what the Supreme Court has said, but do you 
contend that the child's rights, unborn child's rights, should 
be weighed in considered whether to limit late-term abortion?
    Ms. Murray. As I was saying, in Planned Parenthood v. 
Casey, the Court allowed the States to regulate for the 
potentiality of life. That was the leavening of both the 
woman's right to choose an abortion.
    Mr. Bishop. Do you believe it should be so limited?
    Ms. Murray. It doesn't matter what I believe; it matters 
what the Constitution says and how the Constitution is 
interpreted.
    Mr. Bishop. All right. Thank you.
    Ms. Warbelow, the Human Right Campaign also supports the 
Democrat's bill that I just made reference to that providing 
for abortion up until birth potentially. Isn't that correct?
    Ms. Warbelow. We support the bill, but again like Professor 
Murray said, your statements are a mischaracterization of what 
the bill does.
    Mr. Bishop. You say that it could not protect the right to 
an abortion until the moment of birth? Is that what you are 
saying?
    Ms. Warbelow. That isn't how abortion care works. In fact, 
to suggest that's how abortion care works is really troubling 
and dangerous for women.
    Mr. Bishop. Okay. So, only because you are saying that as a 
practical matter, that is not how abortions occur, therefore 
the bill does allow--by its terms, it allows that. Isn't that 
correct?
    Ms. Warbelow. It does not. It's a mischaracterization of 
how the bill operates. As Professor--
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman is expired.
    Mr. Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court recognized the 
constitutional right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade. That 
ruling, anchored in our Constitution's right to privacy, was 
part of a litany of cases forming the doctrine of substantive 
due process guaranteeing constitutional protections for many of 
the freedoms that we embrace and rely upon in the modern United 
States.
    Whether it be a parent's decision on how to raise their 
child, an adult's decision to marry the person they love, or 
the decision to use contraception, these private intimate 
choices have long been left to the individual to make for 
themselves, not to politicians.
    In the weeks since Dobbs was published, I can tell you that 
the people of my district in Arizona are angry. They are angry 
because the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe reverses 
years of hard-won progress and precedent. It threatens the 
lives, careers, and families they have built, and the plans 
they have made for their future. Simply put, it turns back the 
clock.
    While Justice Alito attempted to distinguish the right to 
an abortion from other personal freedoms recognized by the 
Court in recent decades like access to contraception, like 
marriage equality, his distinguishing rationale was so weak 
that there is little hope that other personal liberties will 
hold up to its scrutiny.
    Make no mistake, the Dobbs decision is a clear invitation 
to State legislatures to pass more hostile laws that without a 
doubt will result in litigation before the Supreme Court and 
will result in further fundamental rights being stripped away.
    You don't have to be a close observer of the Court to know 
this: Today's Supreme Court majority will not stop at 
overturning the right to an abortion. Now, the Court feels 
empowered and emboldened to ignore stare decisis and rewrite 
settled law. From Meyer, the case protecting parental decision 
making, to Griswold protecting access to contraception, to 
Loving protecting interracial marriage, to Lawrence protecting 
privacy for intimate relationships, to Obergefell protecting 
marriage equality a century of stare decisis is at stake.
    So, now it is up to us, Members of Congress, who are duty-
bound to our voters to take immediate action to secure our 
fundamental liberties through Federal statute. That will 
require abolishing the filibuster, but protecting 
constitutional rights is more important than protecting our 
archaic rule of the Senate. Our Constitution, our country, and 
the American people demand it.
    I have a question for Mr. Obergefell. You are a legend. You 
have changed America for the better, so thank you for your 
leadership. I want to acknowledge that first and foremost, your 
courageous action.
    Do you trust Justice Alito's assurance that rights of 
LGBTQ+ people will not be overturned? If so, why not?
    Mr. Obergefell. Not one bit. He clearly is opposed to 
marriage equality just based on his dissent in Obergefell. 
Regardless of what he puts in writing in this Dobbs decision 
he--this decision opens the door to attack marriage equality. 
Justice Thomas' concurring opinion gives additional language 
and groundwork to do that.
    To be fair, several of these justices during the 
confirmation hearings were not completely truthful, in my 
opinion, in their responses to their opinion on precedent 
relating to Roe v. Wade. So, that piece of writing in that 
decision does not give me any comfort whatsoever. When one 
right is lost, all rights are at risk.
    Mr. Stanton. Ms. Warbelow, essentially the same question. 
Justice Alito's pronouncement in Dobbs that, ``Nothing in this 
opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that 
do not concern abortion,'' does that offer you any reassurance 
that this Supreme Court majority will not roll back protections 
for LGBTQ+ people?
    Ms. Warbelow. It's important to note that the majority 
opinion is a consensus document. It does not reflect what 
Justice Alito might have written had he chosen to write this 
decision alone. He and Justice Thomas have repeatedly said that 
they believe that the Obergefell decision was wrong. Not only 
did they say it in the dissent to that opinion, but they've 
said it subsequently including in subsequent court filings.
    So, there is every reason to believe that they very much 
would invite and would like to see that precedent overturned 
along with other precedents including Griswold and Lawrence.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Roy?
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
    I have got a couple of questions here for Professor Murray, 
first in terms of Room Raider. I appreciate the stuffed 
elephant in the background, Professor Murray, as I am looking 
at the backdrop there. As a dad, I am enjoying that in the 
background.
    I would ask you a question: Who decides when life begins?
    Ms. Murray. Well, thank you for the question, 
Representative Roy. It's nice to see you. I'll remind you that 
we overlapped at the University of Virginia many years ago.
    Mr. Roy. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Murray. I'm actually in my friend's son's bedroom. I'm 
on vacation with my family.
    The question of when life begins is an essentially personal 
question. It is often informed by the individual religious 
beliefs and moral beliefs--
    Mr. Roy. Sure. Well, no hold on. I have limited--
    [Simultaneous speaking]
    Mr. Roy. I am sorry. I have got limited time.
    Ms. Murray. --values--
    Mr. Roy. Hold on, Professor. Professor, I know we have got 
limited time. Who, as a matter of law, who decides when life 
begins and who decides when and how life is protected?
    Ms. Murray. The Constitution does not speak to the question 
of when life begins, just as it doesn't speak to many other 
things including the right to an abortion and Executive 
privilege and qualified immunity.
    Mr. Roy. So, in the absence--
    Ms. Murray. It is a personal decision and our 
Constitution--
    Mr. Roy. --in the absence of the Constitution specifically 
saying when life begins, then who best to decide when to 
protect life, the people, or courts?
    Ms. Murray. Representative Roy, as you know, the question 
of when life begins is a personal question informed by 
religious beliefs. Our Constitution in the very First Amendment 
says emphatically that the government shall not endorse any 
particular religion. It shall not establish--
    [Simultaneous speaking]
    Mr. Roy. Professor, when we have life, when we make 
decisions about protecting life, which we do all the time--if a 
three-month-old infant is murdered, we protect that life. If a 
50-year-old is murdered, we have laws across the country that 
protect that life. We make decisions about when life begins.
    My simple question is, as a matter of law, who decides when 
we protect life and whether or not that is judges to decide 
that moment or whether that is elected representatives elected 
by the people?
    Ms. Murray. Well, Representative Roy, as you say, we have 
laws. Those laws are written by our representatives. We also 
have fundamental rights. As you have noted, these fundamental 
rights are not unfettered, but they do allow individuals to 
possess certain freedoms.
    For example, the Second Amendment right, despite the fact 
that we have prohibitions on murder, allow individuals to bear 
arms, indeed sometimes to effects that are incredibly 
deleterious to--
    [Simultaneous speaking]
    Mr. Roy. Professor, let me ask you this question: Do you 
think Brown is settled law, Brown v. Board of Education?
    Ms. Murray. I do think Brown is settled law.
    Mr. Roy. Do you think then Plessy was not settled law and 
Brown righted it?
    Ms. Murray. I think that Plessy v. Ferguson espoused a 
doctrine of separate, but equal that was absolutely 
antithetical to the principles of the equal protection--
    Mr. Roy. Right, but the question here is if you--do you 
agree when Justice Kagan--in her confirmation proceedings, she 
said there were two ways to amend the Constitution: Through 
article 5 or through the Judiciary, through the Courts. Do you 
agree with that statement?
    Ms. Murray. That is typically how we have amended the 
Constitution in the past.
    Mr. Roy. So, in other words, so that it can, in fact, be 
amended through judicial action? As Justice Marshall said, ``do 
what you think is right and let the law catch up.''
    What I am trying to get at here is when we are talking 
about judicial activism, we are talking about the Court 
creating law, the Court making the decision. The whole question 
here is who gets to decide? I think that is what is 
fundamental.
    Let me ask you a quick question, Professor Murray; I am 
going to run out of time: Do you think that the Heller 
decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, is settled law?
    Ms. Murray. I think the Heller decision is one that was 
decided by this--
    Mr. Roy. Yes or no, is it settled law?
    Ms. Murray. It is settled law, but it seems to have been 
expanded in--
    Mr. Roy. Is McDonald v. Chicago settled law?
    Ms. Murray. McDonald v. Chicago merely incorporates the 
reminders of the Second Amendment to the States through the 
14th Amendment.
    Mr. Roy. The questions here are simple, Professor. Are they 
settled law? Is Shelby County v. Holder settled law?
    Ms. Murray. Shelby County v. Holder simply eliminates the 
pre-clearance formula--
    Mr. Roy. Yes, I know what the case does. Professor, I know 
what the case does. Is it settled law?
    Ms. Murray. It is settled law. It can also be [inaudible]--
    Mr. Roy. Thank you. Is Citizens United settled law?
    Ms. Murray. Citizens United provides that corporations have 
a First Amendment right--
    Mr. Roy. I know. Professor, I know you are a professor. I 
know you can recite what is in the cases. I am asking if these 
are settled law. I think my point here--
    [Simultaneous speaking]
    Ms. Murray. --this is a public forum and we are--
    Mr. Roy. --my point here is simple. Ma'am, I know. My point 
here is simple.
    Ms. Murray. Educating the public, Representative Roy. I'd 
like to provide--
    Mr. Roy. Professor, my point here is simple. The question 
is who gets to decide? Who gets to decide these fundamental 
questions?
    Ms. Murray. Well, it seems that your question--
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. Ms. 
Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to say to women and 
girls in our country, do not give up hope because of the 
actions of a radical, extremist, corrupt Supreme Court. It is 
on all of us to be sure Dobbs is not our future, a future where 
women and girls are reduced to second class citizenship, a 
future where my daughters-in-law and my granddaughters have 
fewer rights than I had.
    I wanted to talk to you, Ms. Warbelow and Professor Murray, 
about language. Language matters. I don't know if you're paying 
attention, but I have a feeling you are, to the veiled and 
sometimes not so veiled language of incredible disrespect for 
women and girls that we've heard thrown around here and we hear 
thrown around.
    Representative Gohmert, speaking of Planned Parenthood, 
said something, I'll paraphrase, get a younger girl started on 
birth control to better the odds that she'll forget to take the 
pill, so she'll get pregnant and have an abortion. 
Representative Gaetz talking about snap abortions. Obviously, 
someone who's never been pregnant. There's nothing snap about 
an abortion.
    The Witness, our expert here, fabricating that if a woman 
had a procedure to save her life, or a girl had a procedure to 
save her life, it is no longer an abortion. Of course, it is. 
It's a medical procedure.
    Republicans think women are too stupid to make decisions 
for ourselves. Can you both briefly comment on this? Not 
shockingly, this language is all coming from White men of 
privilege and power. Can you speak to the language issue?
    Ms. Warbelow. Language always matters. How our nation's 
elected officials speak about women, about LGBTQ people, about 
people of color has real ramifications. We know that it 
increases feelings of depression and isolation, particularly 
among young, to be suggested that they are less than fully 
human, less than fully wanted. So, the rhetoric that comes from 
our elected officials has real implications. I would encourage 
everyone to be thoughtful on how they speak about folks.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you for that. Professor Murray, could you 
say just briefly any observations you have on the language of 
disrespect toward women and girls?
    Ms. Murray. I think the entire Dobbs opinion is about the 
language of disrespect to women and girls. Planned Parenthood 
v. Casey made very clear that these rights are essential to 
women's equal citizenship. The Court did not even entertain the 
prospect of women's equality to say other than that they found 
that it was inconsistent with its precedent.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you very much. Mr. Obergefell, I am 
thrilled to meet you today. I hope next time it will be in 
person. I thank you for being here. I thank you for being the 
face of courage and the face of change, the face of expanding 
rights in this country, not the shrinking of them.
    Your description in your testimony of your marriage, of 
your 20 years together, your love, your dreams, and your 
disagreements sounds a lot like my marriage. Your description 
of your care for your husband as he suffered and struggled with 
ALS down to his last day, as you say, if that isn't a marriage, 
I don't know what is, again, reminding me of the power of 
marriage. I had the honor this summer to marry two of my 
friends in a same sex marriage.
    I use the words, and I wonder if you love these words as 
much as I. Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Margaret 
Marshall, in 2003, become the first State to recognize same sex 
marriage. I'm abbreviating what she said so eloquently. I 
commend it to everyone.

        Marriage is a vital social institution because it fulfills 
        yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express 
        our common humanity. Civil marriage is an esteemed institution 
        and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's most 
        momentous acts of self-definition.

    Do you agree with that description of marriage, same sex or 
other? Can you speak to your feelings when you read the 
Clarence Thomas clarion call when he says the Court today 
declines to disturb substantive due process in cases like 
Obergefell. For that reason, in future cases, we should 
consider all this Court's substantive, including Obergefell. 
How did you feel?
    Mr. Obergefell. Thank you, Representative Dean. When I read 
those words in Thomas' opinion, they angered me. They upset me 
because here was a justice on our nation's highest court, whose 
marriage exists because of a Supreme Court decision, taking aim 
at our marriage to say he still believes we are less than. We 
are less worthy than. Our relationships, our families do not 
matter--
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Fitzgerald.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think one of the 
things we're hearing today is the complete disdain by Members 
of Congress for the 10th Amendment and the ability for the 
States to actually govern themselves or the idea that 
legislatures that are elected by people in South Dakota versus 
California or New York versus Wisconsin can actually have 
diverse opinions on something as controversial as abortion. So, 
there's a patchwork that exists because there's been many 
States that have been working on pro-life legislation at the 
State level for literally since Roe v. Wade was put in place.
    In Wisconsin, my State falls into that category. I was in 
the State Senate for 27 years, worked on a number of different 
pro-life pieces of legislation, including constitutional 
amendments that prohibit partial birth abortion. As we continue 
to pass those bills, it was all done under the guise of we were 
walking the fine line right up to Roe v. Wade.
    So, when I was majority leader in 2015, we passed a law 
prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. Wisconsin also has a law 
in the books passed before Roe v. Wade that bans abortion in 
all cases except for the life of the mother subject to 
penalties under a different felony case in the 2015 law. It's 
my understanding it's common for criminal statutes to overlap.
    The old law should in no way conflict with the 2015 law 
which also provides for civil claims for damages, for example, 
against any person who performs an abortion on a pregnant woman 
in violation of the Act. The only difference between the two 
statutes is one was written before Roe v. Wade, and the other 
was written after. The Supreme Court decision in the recent 
Dobbs case is binding on the States, and any Wisconsin statute 
that had conflicted with Roe should now have full legal force 
and effect.
    However, I think what we're seeing is that Democrats who 
don't trust their legislatures or governors are trying to 
circumvent the law. They're trying to figure out a way of let's 
work around the local people, local yokels in State legislature 
because we know better in Congress. We always know better, 
which is always puzzling to me because there's such a high 
percentage of Members of the Congress that served in the State 
legislatures.
    In Wisconsin, our governor, Governor Evers, promised to 
provide clemency to any physician that is charged under 
Wisconsin abortion laws. Our attorney general brought a suit 
against the State legislature already which is legally 
questionable in its own right, asserting that the 2015 law 
supplants the earlier Wisconsin law because they are, ``in 
direct conflict with each other.'' I believe the only 
difference between the two statutes is that one was written 
after Roe and one before again.
    So, my question would be to Ms. Glenn Foster. What has been 
kind of the recent response and the knee jerk that you're 
seeing kind of from State to State as we look at this distrust 
for the State legislatures and what they may do or not do in 
light of the ruling?
    Ms. Foster. Most States are moving to protect human life. 
They're moving to put those pre-Roe laws or those post-Roe laws 
into enforcement. That 2015 law was a temporary solution to the 
Roe problem, and it did not repeal Wisconsin's pre-Roe law.
    So, that pre-Roe law sets the abortion policy of Wisconsin 
which is a State that I love. I'm a Packers fan, Bucks fan, 
love the cheese State. Wisconsin is also a pro-life State. It's 
going to be free from abortion businesses.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Do you think that as this ``patchwork'' 
exists that it will be an opportunity for the electorate to 
kind of revisit some of these issues and adjust compared to 
what the Supreme Court has done?
    Ms. Foster. It is, yes. That's why we have elected 
representatives. The American people are going to make their 
will known.
    We've seen that in the polling. We know that the American 
people support life. We expect to see that the American people 
and their elected representatives will pass laws that will 
protect life going forward.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Escobar.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and many thanks to our 
Witnesses. Today's hearing is an opportunity for us to examine 
the kind of future that Republicans, including those on the 
Supreme Court, have shown that they want for us in America. In 
a nutshell, their future, the future that they are working on 
is rights for me, but not for thee.
    It's about turning back the clock so that our country 
allows Republican controlled States to create second class 
citizenship for certain groups. I'd like to share a brief 
story. A constituent of mine, a mother who I admire 
tremendously, recently told me about her abortion.
    She and her husband had two children when they learned 
about a new pregnancy. They were so excited about the news. 
They bought a crib. They were planning for their new baby. They 
looked forward this future.
    In her final trimester, her doctor gave her the tragic news 
that her baby was not viable. If she carried the baby to term, 
she would most certainly die, leaving her two children 
motherless. She had to make the difficult decision to terminate 
her pregnancy. She went to a clinic and in addition to the 
devastation and sadness that she felt, she had to endure the 
chiding of protesters who were shouting at her as she walked 
in, people who thought they should have the last word over the 
decision she and her doctor made, people who thought they knew 
better.
    In the Republican party's view and indeed in the laws they 
have written in States today, this mother would not have been 
able to terminate this pregnancy. She would've died and the 
baby would not have survived outside the womb. Her two children 
would be motherless, and her husband would be a widower.
    So, when one of my colleagues claims that ``all life is 
precious,'' there really should be an asterisk by his statement 
because there are many exceptions to that statement for them, 
one of them being women, because apparently women are 
expendable. This is the Republican party's vision for women and 
families and children in America where women and even a 10-
year-old impregnated by rape will be forced to move forward 
with government mandated birth even as in the case of my 
constituent when she faced certain death.
    The Republican Witness said, ``we should have a hearing on 
helping American families.'' Ms. Foster, Democrats have indeed 
had hearings on helping American families. House Democrats 
passed a bill that would provide parents with paid family and 
medical leave so that they could be home with their newborn 
baby.
    We passed a bill with access to childcare so that those 
parents could go to work and provide for their babies and 
universal pre-K for children so that those babies could get a 
good start on their education. Every Republican voted against 
that. We also had hearings and passed bills to help keep 
children alive, to have the freedom to live free from the 
carnage that comes with gun violence. Every Republican here 
voted against that as well.
    Make no mistake about it. While Republicans may be pro-
forced birth, they are anything but pro-life. In Republican 
controlled States with the harshest abortion laws like my own 
State of Texas, we have underfunded schools, failing foster 
care systems, lack of access to healthcare. I could go on and 
on and on.
    This is what they call being pro-life. What else is in the 
future that Republicans are planning for Americans? Justice 
Thomas in his opinion has literally invited States to challenge 
marriage equality, access to birth control, and more is sure to 
come.
    So, for Americans listening at home, you think you have a 
right for birth control? If you do, think again. You're on 
their list. You think you have a right to marry who you love? 
If you do, think again. You're on their list.
    As Republicans continue to try to strip women and children 
of their rights, creating a whole class of second-class 
citizens, my Democratic colleagues and I will continue to fight 
for you. We trust you. We believe in you. We believe in your 
right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Mr. Chair, I 
yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Owens.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the eloquent 
defense of life offered by many of Republican colleagues this 
morning. I add my voice to theirs and recognize the sanctity of 
all life. Having grown up in the Jim Crow South of segregation 
and KKK, I'm familiar with the true racism, intolerance, and 
hate, all due to the color of my skin. I see the same thing 
today in 2022 as the hard left, the so-called party of 
tolerance who banged the drum of racism, inequality, and equity 
do not practice what they preach.
    The leaked opinion and reversal of Roe v. Wade unleashed 
carefully planned attacks on pro-life organizations, violent 
protests, an assassination attempt at the home of Supreme Court 
Justice and his family, and racially charged firestorm against 
the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. That's nothing new 
for Justice Thomas who has been the target of the elitist left 
for 40 years. Instead of celebrating the second Black American 
in our nation's history highest court, they declared open 
season with vicious and racist attacks.
    This is because he's an articulate, confident Black 
American who loves the American tenets of God, country, and 
family. It's because he's a Black man who dares to think 
differently than they would love for him to think. I'd like to 
share some comments of their comments with this Committee.
    Samuel L. Jackson called Justice Thomas ``Uncle Clarence,'' 
and tweeted that a ban on interracial marriage is next. 
Representative Bennie Thompson called Justice Thomas ``Uncle 
Tom,'' citing support for voter ID and opposition to 
affirmative action. He stated that Justice Thomas doesn't like 
Black people. He doesn't like being Black. I'm going to take a 
second and repeat that line. Justice Thomas doesn't like Black 
people. He doesn't like being Black.
    Chicago Mayor Lightfoot attacked Justice Thomas in a 
profane rant, suggesting the decision would lead to overturning 
gay marriage. Hillary Clinton called Justice Thomas an angry 
person of grievance. It's not just Justice Thomas they attack.
    CNN suggested that Congresswoman Myra Flores wasn't the 
real deal. They believe, ``she holds views outside Latino 
mainstream.'' Myra, too, dares to think differently than what 
the elitist left demands. A guest on MSNBC, host Joy Reid 
called Virginia Lieutenant Governor Winston Sears a Black mouth 
of White supremacy.
    Twitter allowed Uncle Tim to trend for hours after Senator 
Tim Scott's State of the Union rebuttal before taking action. A 
White newspaper cartoonist for the Utah State Salt Lake City 
Tribune portrayed me as a White clansman. So, typical of the 
condescending racism.
    If these same attacks were aimed at Barack Obama and were 
called out by this Committee and the media for exactly what it 
is, pure racism, this Chair would probably hold a hearing on 
it. I'd like to tender some advice for those on the left who 
attempt to divide us with their hateful rhetoric.
    First, I recommend a good book I read a couple of decades 
ago called, ``How to Win Friends and Influence People.'' The 
hard left is failing big time in this area.
    Second, I suggest you totally missed the basic one on one 
of American spirit. We don't respond well to intimidation and 
bullies and cowards.
    This pattern of intolerance is disgusting, unjustified, un-
American. Most importantly, it shows how far we've come from 
MLK's dream where our children will one day live in a nation 
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by 
the character of their content. Instead of working to 
delegitimize our institutions, default into fear-mongering 
tactics and basic arguments that the Supreme Court wants to 
take away our rights.
    We should be honest with the American people. Dishonesty is 
not appreciated by the American people, and you'll see that in 
November of this year. Check it out.
    Roe v. Wade cost us 23 million innocent lives like the pro-
slavery Democrat Dred Scott decision in 1857. It was a flawed 
decision. Overcoming Roe didn't outlaw abortion or take away 
the constitutional right of Americans. It put the decision in 
State hands, in the hands of we the people where it belongs.
    To angry left, it's time to settle down, take off your 
masks, and show your cowardly faces. Put down your stones and 
firebombs and through civil debate convince us that you're 
right. My prediction is you have no clue.
    Meanwhile, a Black constitutionalist on the Supreme Court 
who stands with that decision should be revered, not ridiculed. 
Last thought, Justice Thomas is old school. I promise you he 
will not be intimidated. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Chair.
    Mr. Jones. [Presiding.] For what purpose does Ms. Jackson 
Lee seek recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Very quickly, Mr. Chair. I have unanimous 
consent to submit into the record the Senatorial Testimony of 
the Supreme Court judges of Kavanagh, Gorsuch, and Amy Barrett. 
Texas woman, 26, charged with murder over self-induced 
abortion.
    Texas abortion law strains clinics according to doctors. 
Attacks against abortion providers by anti-abortion activists. 
Finally, doctors' worst fears about the Texas abortion law 
coming true. I ask unanimous consent to submit all these into 
the record.
    Mr. Jones. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                     MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Jones. The Chair now recognizes himself for five 
minutes. I want to start by thanking Chair Nadler for holding 
this urgently needed hearing today. I offer my thanks to all 
the Witnesses for their thoughtfulness and for their time.
    As I read through Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in 
Dobbs, I think of the heads up he gave us about the far-right 
majority's plan to overturn other well established 
constitutional rights that Americans had just taken for granted 
in their daily lives. In particular, Justice Thomas calls on 
the Court to, ``reconsider all of this Court's substantive due 
process precedents,'' including the Court's 1965 decision in 
Griswold as well as the Court's decisions in Lawrence v. Texas 
and Obergefell. These are, of course, the three cases 
establishing the constitutional rights to contraception, non-
procreative intimacy, and marriage equality.
    In casting doubt on these decisions, Justice Thomas let us 
know that the far-right majority on the Court is not satisfied 
to have deprived millions of Americans of the right to an 
abortion. Rather the majority is on a rampage against other 
freedoms currently enjoyed by the American people. As someone 
who has repeatedly drawn attention to the partisanship of the 
far-right majority on the Court and the fact that these six 
justices are not people who can simply be reasoned with using 
sound legal arguments or even the Court's own precedent.
    I can't help but think of Justice Thomas' glaring omission 
of another case. This has been discussed to some extent today. 
That case is a 1967 decision called Loving v. Virginia which 
established the constitutional right to interracial marriage.
    It seems to me that following Justice Thomas' logic about 
reconsidering the Court's substantive due process precedent, 
the Loving decision would fall naturally on his list. In fact, 
the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade explicitly 
relied on the decision in Loving v. Virginia. Moreover, the 
case is cited multiple times in both Justice Alito's majority 
opinion and in the dissent in Dobbs.
    Now, my Republican colleagues would say that Justice 
Thomas' omission of Loving v. Virginia has nothing at all to do 
with the fact that he's a Black man married to a White woman. 
Never mind that he tried to block the January 6th Committee 
from seeing documents that may have included evidence of his 
wife plotting the insurrection at the Capitol. He would never 
do something that is in his personal interest above that of 
what the law requires, or sound legal reasoning requires.
    Professor Murray, what does it say to the reputation of the 
Supreme Court--or rather, what does it do to the reputation of 
the Supreme Court and to people's faith in the institution that 
justices like Clarence Thomas appear to be deciding cases based 
on their own personal preferences and political ideology rather 
than what the law requires?
    Ms. Murray. Thank you, Representative Jones. I will note 
that this idea that judges deciding cases based on their own 
predilections is the very essence of the judicial activism that 
your conservative colleagues have denounced. I also wanted do 
respond to Representative Owens' comments about condescending 
racism.
    I would like to perhaps call attention to the condescending 
sexism of this decision which seems to view of the choices of 
women as somehow illegitimate when they make them. The Supreme 
Court has virtually ignored American women with this decision. 
The consequences will be startling and alarming.
    Mr. Jones. Thank you, Professor. A Gallup poll released on 
the day before the Dobbs decision revealed that 75 percent of 
Americans do not view the Court as a legitimate nonpartisan 
institution. Confidence in the Court is vanishingly low for 
good reason.
    Question is, what the hell is Congress going to do about 
it? It turns out we are not powerless to stop this Court's 
rampage against our freedoms. Congress, in fact, has a 
breathtaking number of options to reign in the power of this 
rogue Supreme Court.
    In the past, Congress has deprived the Court of appellate 
jurisdiction to issue certain decisions. It has expanded and 
contracted the number of justices. It has granted and withheld 
the Court's power to issue injunctions and other writs.
    It has immunized particular types of defendants and 
Executive actions from judicial review. It has suspended causes 
of action to bring certain challenges. Of course, it has taken 
other actions.
    I have routinely urged this body to take action to reform 
the Supreme Court, action that is desperately needed to meet 
this moment in our history. It's why I introduced, along with 
Chair Johnson and Chair Nadler, the Judiciary Act to add four 
seats to the Supreme Court of the United States. Additionally, 
I recently proposed an amendment to the Women's Health 
Protection Act that would strip the Supreme Court of its 
jurisdiction to review that very legislation and channel all 
review of its constitutionality and legality to the D.C. 
Circuit Court of Appeals. Interestingly enough, the 
conservatives on the Court, specifically Justice Roberts and 
Justice Thomas, have long endorsed Congress' ability to do 
these things.
    We are at an inflection point. Years from now, history will 
record this as the moment when we decided what we would do to 
defeat the threat of fascism in this country posed by the 
modern-day Republican party with the Supreme Court of the 
United States as an accomplice. I yield back, and the Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Bentz.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield my time to the 
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you so much. I thank the 
gentleman for yielding. I'm going to bring this home. I think 
I'm the last one on the Republican side. Oh, and we have Mr. 
Raskin. Boy, I don't want to upstage him.
    Let me say there's been a lot of alarmist rhetoric here 
today. There really has. I'm just going to ask Ms. Warbelow 
because something you said earlier really struck me.
    You lamented our dusty old founding documents, and you 
expressed your obvious disdain for the Founders who drafted 
them. That's how it was received here. I'm not sure if that's 
what you intended. Are you aware--or let me say, would you 
agree that America is indeed the most successful, most 
powerful, most free nation in the history of the world?
    Ms. Warbelow. I would agree that America is a critically 
important country, one that I love. It has made mistakes and 
continues to make mistakes. As Americans, we need to come 
together to correct those mistakes. I apologize if what you 
took away was a critique of our Founders. My critique is that 
the Founders were not representative of the people of the 
United States--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Sure. Well, let me--
    Ms. Warbelow. --crafting our documents.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. --reclaim my time. They did 
acknowledge that we are in the process of making a more perfect 
union. The idea that we're not the most exceptional nation in 
the world I don't think is backed up by objective evidence. Let 
me just say that the great nation--I would assume you would 
agree that we are at least a great nation, a very important 
nation. I won't paraphrase what you said.
    We are, and there's a reason for that. It's not by 
happenstance. It's because we are founded--as my dear friend 
and colleague, Burgess Owens, just noted--on the bold 
declaration that all men are created equal and in the image of 
our creator.
    Because of that, we believe that every single human life 
has an inestimable dignity and value. By the way, your values 
are not related in any way to the color of your skin or what 
neighborhood you grew up in or where you went to school. Your 
value is inherent because as the Founders noted, it is given to 
you by God. We believe every person should then be measured by 
the content of our character as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 
said.
    We also believe, and I think America was founded upon this 
premise, that a just government protects innocent life. It 
honors marriage and family as the primary institutions of a 
healthy society. It embraces the cultural influences of 
religion and morality.
    We believe and we propose, and it should not be a 
controversial notion because it wasn't in previous generations, 
that we preserve these ideals, we maintain these, as Ms. Foster 
articulated earlier. When we do that, we maintain the goodness 
of America which really has been the secret of our genius and 
greatness.
    I've got two minutes and 20 seconds left. I yield to Ms. 
Foster. Is there anything you want to add as we wrap this up 
today?
    Ms. Foster. I would. Justice Thomas, he's a philosopher. 
He's a textualist. We know that. So, he is not seeking to strip 
away rights. He is simply seeking to more firmly ground them in 
our nation's Constitution.
    By doing that, they will be more secure, really even than 
before. We know that from Obergefell which had both equal 
protection and substantive due process woven throughout that 
decision. We know that from the Loving decision which was 
founded even more strongly on equal protection than substantive 
due process.
    We know that from all the lines of decisions that we've 
talked about here today. We also know that substantive due 
process has a bit of a checkered past. It did not protect 
workers in Lochner. It did not protect Black Americans who were 
enslaved in Dred Scott. So, we're looking to redeem the 
foundation of our nation and to redeem these rights and make 
sure that they are grounded properly in our nation's 
Constitution so that they can be protect for a long time to 
come.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. On that process in making a more 
perfect union, look, I will just note because this is the last 
anyone on our side will be able to say.
    We just celebrated our 246th birthday as a nation on July 
4th. We are still an experiment in self-governance. We are an 
experiment on the world stage. We have the greatest 
constitution ever written. It has endured for this long.
    It won't endure if we abandon its principles and untie 
ourselves from the mooring. That is what textualism, 
originalism is all about. We want to defend this matchless 
constitution. It is the model for everybody else around the 
world.
    There is a reason, real reasons that we are the greatest 
nation yet. By God's grace, we will continue to be.
    There has been a lot said here today. At the end I hope 
that is what comes through, that we want to defend those 
fundamental freedoms. Again, as it said on the great birth 
certificate of the nation 246 years ago and a few days, that 
begins with the recognition you have an unalienable right to be 
born.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Jones. The gentleman yields.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North 
Carolina, Ms. Ross, for five minutes.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all our 
Witnesses and panelists for joining us today, and the many 
people who came here in person to hear such important testimony 
about such important issues.
    The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's 
Health threatens some of our most fundamental American 
freedoms. This decision sets the groundwork for the Court to 
overturn past decisions concerning people's right to privacy 
far beyond abortion, as we have heard, including the right to 
obtain contraceptives, the right to marry a person of a 
different race, the right to decide how to raise our own 
children, the right to protection from the government for 
interference in our intimate lives, and the right to marry the 
person we love, regardless of their sex.
    The vast majority of Americans support these rights. It is 
deeply concerning that this Court has acted against the will of 
the people to roll back freedoms, to roll back freedoms that so 
many of us have come to enjoy as we have grown up. We have 
taken them for granted.
    Overturning the right to contraception, in particular, 
could be even more damaging to women and families than the 
reversal of Roe v. Wade. It would lead to far more unintended 
pregnancies and, therefore, more abortions.
    If Griswold v. Connecticut were overturned as a result of 
Dobbs, married couples and others could be barred from making 
their own decisions about whether or not to have a child.
    We do not and should not look to the Supreme Court for 
advice on when and how to raise a family. This Court has 
inserted itself into the lives of millions of Americans, 
nonetheless. Both those in favor and opposed to abortion rights 
overwhelmingly support the right to contraception.
    When I advocated for women's rights in North Carolina, I 
found unity on both sides of the political aisle working to 
expand access to contraception. I got bipartisan sponsors to 
support legislation requiring insurance to cover contraception, 
even before the Affordable Care Act. Our lead sponsor, a 
Republican doctor.
    A poll by Five30Eight last month found that over 91 percent 
of Americans believe contraception, like condoms and birth 
control pills, should be legal. In fact, slightly more 
Republicans were in favor than Democrats in that poll.
    Similarly, the vast majority of Americans, 71 percent, 
support marriage equality.
    This Court, which Senator McConnell manipulated to create 
conservative--a conservative, activist majority, has corroded 
the very fabric of freedom in the United States, putting many 
of our most popular and fundamental rights in jeopardy.
    My first question is for Professor Murray.
    Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion took aim at these 
landmark cases. What effect would removing the right to 
contraception have on women, men, and families in our country?
    Ms. Murray. It would be absolutely devastating, 
Representative Ross. The right to contraception allows 
individuals to make decisions about the planning and timing of 
their families. It allows them to finish their education, to 
pursue employment opportunities.
    Women have depended on this and have organized their lives 
around the availability of this right, in the same way that 
they organized their lives around the availability of the right 
to an abortion. So, it would be absolutely devastating.
    Ms. Ross. As a follow-up to that, what effect would it have 
on public health, on sexually transmitted diseases if condoms 
were outlawed?
    Ms. Murray. All forms of contraception and the 
unavailability of then would have profound effects for public 
health. We are already seeing some anecdotal evidence around 
the country of certain forms of healthcare being denied to 
individuals on the ground that they may also cause abortions or 
miscarriages.
    You could have the same kind of effects in terms of 
sexually transmitted diseases if condoms were not available, if 
certain forms of birth control were unavailable, because they 
have other indications and other uses for which they might be 
prohibited.
    So, again, this would be absolutely devastating on a number 
of fronts.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Jones. The gentlelady yields.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 
Raskin, for five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
    When this hearing began, the gentleman from Ohio rattled 
off a list of incidents of vandalism, and graffiti, and break-
ins at churches taking place. He mentioned several of them in 
my district.
    I want to say that I denounce and I categorically reject 
these outrageous acts of vandalism, and graffiti, and break-ins 
against churches in my district. Regardless of who did them, 
left, right, or center, this must end, and this is not a proper 
way for anyone to treat other people's property, or churches, 
or to express political opposition.
    Now, does the gentleman from Ohio, and do his colleagues on 
that side of the aisle reject the already proven acts of murder 
and violence that have been taking place against doctors, 
nurses, police officers, and healthcare providers, not over the 
last several weeks or months but over the last several decades?
    Do they denounce, did they denounce the murder of OB/GYN 
doctor David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida, who had been the 
subject of wanted posters by Operation Rescue?
    Do my colleagues denounce, did they denounce the murder of 
Dr. John Britton, a physician, and James Barrett, a clinic 
escort, also shot to death in Pensacola, Florida.
    Do they denounce the murder of Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann 
Nichols, killed in clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts?
    How about Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who 
worked as a security guard in an abortion clinic in Birmingham, 
Alabama, who was killed when his workplace was bombed?
    So on. I could go on all day. I just have a couple minutes.
    Murders, assaults, kidnapping, where do they stand on all 
these, hundreds and hundreds of acts of violence against 
abortion clinics? Or do they just oppose incidents that take 
place--we don't know who, by who, for example, in my district 
yet, but presumably they think by people on the other side.
    I denounce it all. Do they denounce it all? I hope that 
they would.
    Now, I was hoping my friend from Louisiana would still be 
here. I am glad--I know he had to go vote. I wanted my 
colleague to know, I know that my colleague from Louisiana, the 
erudite Mr. Johnson, would certainly know this, that five of 
the justices, the majority of the Court, five of the justices 
in the Roe v. Wade majority were appointed by Republican 
Presidents. Wonder if they know that?
    Justice Blackmun, who was named to the Court, nominated to 
the Court by Richard Nixon.
    Chief Justice Burger, Nixon.
    Justice Powell from Virginia, of course he was a Nixon 
appointee.
    Potter Stewart, Eisenhower.
    William Brennan, Eisenhower.
    There were two others in the majority who were Democratic 
appointees. LBJ had appointed Justice Marshall. FDR had 
appointed Justice Douglas, who was still on the Court at that 
point.
    Of the two dissenters, one was a Democratic appointee, 
Byron White, and one was a Republican appointee.
    In fact, that was basic constitutional doctrine for more 
than a half century. Republican appointees kept reaffirming it, 
including Justice Stevens, the Ford appointee. Justice Souter, 
who was a very strong champion of Roe v. Wade and the 
constitutional right to privacy.
    What happened was a transformation within the Republican 
party because they began to insist that opposition to Roe v. 
Wade be a litmus test issue, the central issue that judges 
would have to pass, or lawyers would have to pass before they 
got appointed to the bench. So, it became a decades-long 
campaign to overthrow Roe v. Wade, which had been principally 
the handiwork of Republican appointees to the Court. It had 
built this wonderful line of precedent about the constitutional 
right to privacy.
    They were so emphatic about it that in 2006 they blocked 
President Obama's nominee Merrick Garland from even getting a 
hearing. The Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 
did not even get a hearing because they said it was too close 
to the election, the year before the election.
    What happened four years later with Amy Coney Barrett? They 
rammed through her nomination in the last several weeks of the 
Trump Administration, when voting had already begun across the 
country in early voting, in their madcap determination to 
create this anti-Roe majority.
    That is why we are where we are.
    You know what I say? Okay, they played politics that way. I 
hope that every Republican in the country who is pro-choice 
decides to abandon their dangerous extremist party and come 
over to a party that stands up for the freedom of people.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Jones. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Missouri, Ms. 
Bush, for five minutes.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. St. Louis and I thank you, Chair.
    So, just a few weeks ago on Juneteenth I introduced into 
the Congressional Record a document to commemorate the 
unveiling of the Freedom Suits Memorial monument. The Freedom 
Suits Memorial pays tribute to the hundreds of cases in which 
enslaved Black people filed for their freedom from bondage in 
Federal courts in St. Louis.
    The most famous case was that of Dredd Scott, in which the 
Court held that Black people had no rights which the White man 
was bound to respect.
    Dredd Scott is buried in St. Louis in my district, and his 
legacy serves as a reminder of the dangers in believing that 
the Supreme Court has always been a just body. It has not. 
Substantive due process itself was birthed in the aftermath of 
the Civil War.
    It was not legal doctrine that led to the Emancipation 
Proclamation, it was not the Courts, it was not the 
Constitution, which was written to guarantee the rights of 
landholding White men. It was not moral righteousness that led 
to the Emancipation Proclamation of Black people. It was 
violence. It was war. It was the resistance and the persistence 
of abolitionists that put an end to chattel slavery. It was 
because of our freedom dreams and the collective dreams of 
Black people, past and present, who demanded to live in a world 
free of bondage.
    It is not lost on me as a descendant of enslaved people, 
and as the first Black congresswoman from the State of Missouri 
that my existence in this space alone is a testament to the 
freedoms denied the Supreme Court--by the Supreme Court of the 
United States in its Dredd Scott decision 165 years ago.
    Professor Murray, footnote 41 of the majority opinion in 
Dobbs makes a eugenics argument on the impact of abortion in 
Black communities. Can you explain the significance of footnote 
41 as it relates to contraception?
    Ms. Murray. Sure. To claim a term used by Representative 
Owens, you might do this as a kind of condescending racism, the 
Court attempting to relate the history of the modern birth 
control movement and reproductive rights to the history of 
eugenics for the purpose of essentially arguing that 
reproductive rights are rooted in a history of racial 
injustice.
    I believe that the footnote doesn't really bear on the 
logic of the Dobbs opinion, but rather is there to seed an 
opening for eventually overruling the right to contraception on 
the ground that it is a racial injustice. The idea being that 
Margaret Singer, through her work with the eugenics movement, 
was essentially trafficking in racial injustice and, for that 
reason, the right to contraception should be overruled as a 
means of remedying that racial injustice.
    It is the most craven form of racial condescension, in part 
because it is being parroted by those who do nothing to assist 
the Black community, whether in their judicial opinions or in 
their actions in other ways.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. Another question for you, Professor 
Murray.
    The reconstruction amendments were drafted not only to 
eradicate slavery, but also to eradicate the vestiges of 
slavery and all forms of bondage. The drafters wanted to go 
farther than making Black people citizens and wanted to 
guarantee a sense of liberty.
    Can you talk about how the drafters defined or understood 
liberty when drafting the 13th and 14th Amendments?
    Ms. Murray. Yes.
    So, if the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the 15th 
Amendment gave Black men the right to vote, the 14th Amendment 
was primarily concerned with eradicating all the indicia of 
slavery, the very things that distinguished slavery from 
freedom, among them the absence of bodily autonomy and control 
over procreation. This is very clear. They knew about forced 
birth as a means of expanding the slave population in the 
period before the Civil War, so they were responding to this.
    They also wanted to correct the injustice of having no 
family integrity, of lacking control over your children, of 
being ineligible for civil marriage.
    So, in that grant of liberty in the 14th Amendment precedes 
all these rights that had been denied to the enslaved and were 
now given to them. They weren't explicit because they were 
viewed to be captured in that grant of liberty.
    Justice Alito says nothing about this. It is a selective 
and itinerant commitment to originalism that his opinion 
evinces.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Murray.
    As has been noted, this is the first time the Court has 
taken away a fundamental right. It is important to note that 
our most fundamental rights have never been safe, and they 
never will be guaranteed so long as they depend on the 
ideological whim of nine unaccountable, unelected justices with 
lifetime appointments. It is why we need to limit the power of 
justices by expanding the Court, instituting term limits, 
enacting a code of ethics. It reinforces why Congress should 
strip the Court of the right to take away fundamental rights.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Jones. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    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, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]



      

                                APPENDIX

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

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