U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–122 PDF 2016

THE ULTIMATE CIVIL RIGHT: 

EXAMINING THE HYDE AMENDMENT AND 

THE BORN ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION 

AND CIVIL JUSTICE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 

Serial No. 114–95 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL JUSTICE

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

JAMES J. PARK, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil 

Justice ................................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution 

and Civil Justice ................................................................................................... 3 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 7 

WITNESSES 

Giana Jessen, Abortion Survivor 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

Genevieve Plaster, M.A., Senior Policy Analyst, Charlotte Lozier Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15 

Kierra Johnson, Executive Director, Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity (URGE) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 22 

Arina O. Grossu, M.A., Director, Center for Human Dignity, Family Research 

Council 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on the Constitution and Civil Justice ................................................................. 5 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Hearing Question from Genevieve Plaster, M.A., Senior Policy 

Analyst, Charlotte Lozier Institute .................................................................... 56 

Letter from Melissa Ohden, Founder, The Abortion Survivors Network ........... 57 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 61 
(IV) 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BUT NOT REPRINTED

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Tennessee, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. This material is available at the Subcommittee and 

can also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=105369 
(1) 

THE ULTIMATE CIVIL RIGHT: EXAMINING 

THE HYDE AMENDMENT AND THE BORN 

ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

AND CIVIL JUSTICE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:10 a.m., in room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Franks, DeSantis, King, Gohmert, Jordan, Cohen, and Conyers. 

Also Present: Representative Chu. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Paul Taylor, Chief Counsel; Jake 

Glancy, Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief 

Counsel; James Park, Minority Counsel; Matthew Morgan, Professional Staff Member; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. FRANKS. Good morning. The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice will come to order. And, without objection, 

the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any 

time. 

We welcome everyone today to this hearing. We are calling it 

‘‘The Ultimate Civil Right: Examining the Hyde Amendment and 

the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.’’ And I would 

now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Today, we will hear testimony on existing statutory language 

prohibiting taxpayer funding from paying for the taking of the lives 

of pre-born children through abortion. There is concern that the 

Obama administration or a potential Clinton administration may 

intend to reinterpret the plain and longstanding meaning of the 

Hyde amendment. We will also examine today the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would protect human babies 

who are born alive. 

On this day in the year 2016 in the land of the free and the home 

of the brave, there are no criminal penalties in Federal law for either negligently or deliberately killing born alive human babies 

who are living and breathing on the table after surviving an abortion. 
2 

More than 7 months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives 

passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, with bipartisan support, to protect these little children who are born alive. 

More than 90 percent of the American people support this kind of 

legislation, yet we have been unable to even get a vote or even a 

debate in the United States Senate to protect innocent born-alive 

babies from being deliberately subjected to cruel and torturous 

death. 

The people who came upon Kermit Gosnell’s clinic in Philadelphia and discovered a horrifying scene and several dead babies, 

many of whom had been born alive before being murdered, were 

told by their supervisor that the investigation of abortion was not 

their business. This insidious sense has taken hold that if we are 

dealing with abortion and any of its aspects, we were dealing with 

a ‘‘constitutional right’’ which overrode or trumped any local law 

that might protect the victims. 

Ashley Baldwin, one of Dr. Gosnell’s clinic employees, said she 

saw babies breathing and she described one as 2 feet long that no 

longer had eyes or mouth, but in her words, was making like this 

screeching noise. It sounded like a little alien. 

The abortion industry has labored for all of these decades to convince the world that unborn children and born children should be 

completely separated in our minds, that while born children are 

persons worthy of protection, unborn children are not persons and 

are not worthy of protection. But those who now oppose this bill 

to protect born-alive children suddenly have the impossible task of 

convincing themselves and the American people that a born-alive 

premature baby that has survived an abortion is just a fetus that 

should be disposed of and not a little human baby, not a little 

human child worthy of our protection as a Nation. 

To any compassionate human being who has not invincibly hardened his or her heart or soul, an honest consideration of this absurd inconsistency is profoundly enlightening. 

I would earnestly implore in this moment in this Committee that 

the majority leader of the United States Senate, and I say this in 

the most personal of terms, asking him to hold in some form a recorded vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in 

the U.S. Senate to provide criminal penalties at the Federal level 

to prevent monsters like Kermit Gosnell from murdering innocent 

born-alive human babies. 

Now, President Obama vetoed similar legislation—voted against, 

forgive me—President Obama voted against similar legislation four 

times before becoming President, and astonishingly now has promised in writing to veto this bill if it comes to his desk. And I am 

told Mrs. Clinton holds the same position but intends at all costs 

to avoid revealing that during the Presidential campaign. 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not abortion. This is born alive. 

Born alive. The American people deserve to know where candidates 

for President stand on something so foundationally intrinsic to the 

Republic founded on these core principles that all of us are created 

equal and are children of God. 

The American people still deeply hold themselves to be protective 

of born children, and if those seeking the highest office in the land 

are in opposition to a bill that would protect born-alive children, 
3 

then the American people have a right to know this before the most 

important election in this century, and in the last century, on 

which the core right to live contained in the Constitution of the 

United States itself hangs in the balance. 

Turning our backs on helpless born-alive children is not who we 

are as a people, and it is not who the United States of America has 

become as a Nation. Yet it is one of the most crucial questions now 

upon us in this divisive moment in history, in this decisive moment 

of history as well, and the implication for this country’s soul and 

future are profound beyond words. 

And so I thank the witnesses for being here, and I ask this morning that all of us just open our hearts to the truth. 

And I would now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Cohen for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

It is undisputed that the Constitution guarantees women in this 

country what I believe is the most fundamental and personal decision they will ever make about their reproductive health—whether 

or not to have children—and the Supreme Court made that clear 

in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. The Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the 

Constitution’s guarantee of this right, most recently, in June in 

Whole Woman’s Health Clinic v. Hellerstedt. 

There are people, like Mr. Franks and myself, who have strong 

opinions on the issue and diametrically opposed positions, and we 

will not change each other’s minds today or tomorrow or probably 

ever. 

So why are we here today when the House of Representatives is 

in recess? 

One week from today marks the 40th anniversary of the Hyde 

amendment, and the Hyde amendment is a rider that is attached 

to appropriations bills that fund the Department of Health and 

Human Services. It bans Federal funding for abortion services provided by Medicaid and other Health and Human Services programs, with limited exceptions, and that was hard fought, for 

mothers’ lives or in the case of rape or incest. Medicaid, of course, 

is the primary public health insurance program for low-income 

Americans. 

And this makes me think back to a program I attended last Friday night where Gloria Steinem spoke. And Gloria Steinem spoke 

about the fact that controlling women’s reproductive processes has 

been something that men have done for years, and tried to do, and 

they have tried to control women and they have tried to control 

people of different races and people of different sexual orientations, 

because they liked the power they had and they wanted to keep it 

that way. 

And women, in the days of slavery, were very much encouraged 

to have children, because that was good, because you needed lots 

of more property to bring the crops to make the money. Then when 

they came along with the mechanization, they didn’t need so many 

people, they started to think less of having children. But it was the 

people at the top, the people that owned the land and had the controls, determined a lot and wanted to continue to control women’s 

reproductive systems. 
4 

Poor women experience five times the rate of unintended pregnancies than more affluent women—five times more—with abortion 

becoming more and more concentrated among low-income women 

as a result. And women of color are disproportionately likely to be 

poor and rely on Medicaid for health services, health insurance, 

and this racial disparity is particularly true among women of reproductive age. 

Therefore, the Hyde amendment, when you really look at what 

it does, it bans the funding for abortion services through Medicaid, 

denying low-income and minority women the ability to access a 

safe and legal reproductive health service. 

Perhaps the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, one 

of the greatest men to ever serve on the Supreme Court, put it 

most succinctly when he wrote in 1980 that the Hyde amendment 

is designed to deprive poor and minority women of the constitutional right to choose, because that, in effect, is what it does. 

Simply put, the opponents to the right to choose cannot get what 

they really want, which is to repeal Roe outright, so instead they 

have chosen to deny the right, as a practical matter, to poor women 

and women of color. 

Most Americans, whatever their views on the right to choose, 

agree that politicians should not be allowed to deny a woman 

health insurance coverage for pregnancy-related care just because 

she is poor, and this includes coverage for abortion services. The 

right to choose is well settled, and the amount of money a woman 

has should not determine whether she could exercise her fundamental constitutional right. 

You know, before Roe v. Wade, wealthy women could make their 

ways to Canada or Mexico, and they could get abortions, but poor 

women couldn’t. Money has always been a factor. 

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2972, the ‘‘EACH Woman Act of 2015,’’ 

introduced by the dynamic and great leader, Representative Barbara Lee, who is in the audience and who has a statement, which 

with the permission of the Chair, I would like to introduce and 

make part of the record, without exception. 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
5 
6 
7 

Mr. COHEN. That, too. 

I thank you for being here. And thank you for all you have done. 

When I was with Ms. Steinem, I asked her about her heroes, and 

you and Maxine Waters were right there among them. 

This bill, which Representative Lee has sponsored, would ensure, 

among other things, that Federally funded medical coverage extends to all pregnancy-related healthcare services, including abortion services. The unjust burdens that the Hyde amendment has 

imposed on low-income and minority women demand that Congress 

pass H.R. 2972. 

Mr. Franks, I don’t know the poll, and I know that you can have 

polls of all kind of natures. I don’t know if 90 percent of the people 

support this and how it was phrased. But I do know that about 90 

percent of the people support no fly, no buy, and we can’t get a vote 

on that in the House. And if you take some guns from people who 

are considered too dangerous to fly, you will save some people’s 

lives for sure, people who are here today, but we don’t do it. 

It is time to rescind the Hyde amendment and guarantee that all 

women are able to access quality reproductive healthcare services 

and exercise their constitutional rights without regard to their socioeconomic status. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. 

And I would now recognize the full Committee Ranking Member, 

Mr. Conyers of Michigan, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome the witnesses for today’s important hearing. 

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized a woman’s constitutional right to make what is perhaps the most personal of 

healthcare decisions—when to start a family—free from undue government interference. 

Unfortunately, though, since 1976, Congress has sought to undermine this important constitutional right by attaching the socalled Hyde amendment to annual appropriation measures funding 

the Department of Health and Human Services. The Hyde amendment, of course, is named after a former colleague on the Judiciary 

Committee, Chairman Henry Hyde, which prohibits the use of Federal Medicaid funds to pay for an abortion except to protect the 

mother’s life or in cases of rape or incest. 

There are many reasons why this restriction should be rescinded. 

To begin with, the Hyde amendment is a blatant example of political decisionmaking inappropriately interfering in women’s 

healthcare decisions. For more than 40 years, Roe v. Wade has 

been the law of the land, as has been indicated, yet it is clear that 

the Hyde amendment’s purpose is to undermine the Roe v. Wade 

constitutional guarantee of a right to choose to terminate a pregnancy by limiting low-income women’s access to safe, legal medical 

care. 

Political people, elected officials, most of whom are not doctors, 

have little or no business interfering in a woman’s constitutionally 

protected private healthcare decisions in order to impose their own 

views about women’s rights in health care. 

In addition, the Hyde amendment has a disproportionately detrimental effect on the health of low-income women and the well- 
8 

being of their families. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 

many low-income women lacking medical coverage are forced to 

delay paying their utility bills, rent, groceries even, for themselves 

or their children, to seek out financial assistance from relatives or 

friends, or to sell personal belongings in order to pay for an abortion. 

Moreover, women who cannot afford abortion procedures may, in 

desperation, resort to self-inducing an abortion or turn to unsafe, 

untrained, unlicensed practitioners, heightening the risk of injury 

or death from what is supposed to be a safe and legal medical procedure. 

Finally, the Hyde amendment disproportionately affects women 

of color, which has been indicated. Medicaid provides medical coverage to 20 percent of women of reproductive age, but as a result 

of social and economic inequality tied to the persistence of racism 

in our society, 30 percent of African American women and 20 percent of Hispanic women of reproductive age are enrolled in Medicaid compared to just 14 percent of White women of reproductive 

age. Clearly, the consequences of the Hyde amendment disproportionately fall on women of color. 

While 15 States permit the use of their own funds to provide 

abortion coverage for Medicaid enrollees, 60 percent of reproductive 

age women enrolled in Medicaid live in States that only cover abortion in limited circumstances. Rather than undermine the constitutional right of low-income women and women of color, Congress 

should look to these States as an example and act to ensure that 

women, regardless of their financial situation, have access to quality comprehensive reproductive health services. 

And so I am going to carefully listen to the testimony that comes 

forth, and I thank the witnesses for being with us today. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. 

I will now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Ms. 

Giana Jessen. Ms. Jessen is an abortion survivor. Our second witness is Ms. Genevieve Plaster. Ms. Plaster is the senior policy analyst at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Our third witness is Ms. 

Kierra Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the executive director at the organization URGE. Our fourth and final witness is Ms. Arina Grossu. 

Ms. Grossu is the director for the Center for Human Dignity at the 

Family Research Council. 

Now, each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered 

into the record in its entirety, and I would ask that each witness 

summarize her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay 

within that time, there is a timing light in front of you. The light 

will switch from green to yellow indicating that you have 1 minute 

to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it indicates 

that the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

And before I recognize the witnesses, it is the tradition of the 

Subcommittee that they be sworn. So if you would please stand to 

be sworn. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before 

this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

You may be seated. 
9 

Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses responded in the 

affirmative. 

And I would now recognize our first witness, Ms. Giana Jessen. 

And if you would please turn that microphone on before you 

speak. Pull it there close. 

Ms. JESSEN. Okay. Can you hear me? 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, ma’am. 

TESTIMONY OF GIANA JESSEN, ABORTION SURVIVOR 

Mr. JESSEN. Pardon me. Thank you. Thank you very much for 

giving me the opportunity to speak with you this morning. 

I wish to appeal not only to those present within this chamber 

today, but to my Nation. We are here to discuss infanticide. I am 

greatly troubled that this hearing is even necessary and that such 

a law to prevent infanticide must be constructed in the United 

States of America at all. 

Many Americans have no idea that babies can even live through 

abortions and are often left to die, but this does happen. I know 

this because I was born alive in an abortion clinic after being 

burned in my mother’s womb for 18 hours. My medical records 

clearly state the following: Born during saline abortion/April 6, 

1977/6 a.m./21⁄2 pounds. Triumphantly, I entered this world. I 

added that part. 

Apart from Jesus himself, the only reason I am alive is the fact 

that the abortionist had not yet arrived at work that morning. Had 

he been there, he would have ended my life by strangulation, suffocation, or simply leaving me there to die. 

Instead, I lived and have the gift of cerebral palsy as a direct result of lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving an abortion. And 

cerebral palsy, make no mistake, is a tremendous gift. I don’t know 

if any of you understand, maybe you do, what a tremendous honor 

it is to have to lean on the strong arm of Jesus all the way to heaven. It is my honor, in a country that doesn’t wish to speak his 

name, I will. 

So by the grace of God, in my case, a nurse called an ambulance 

and had me transferred to a hospital. That nurse saved my life, 

and I am profoundly grateful to her for this. 

Those who wish to justify such unspeakable evil, such as leaving 

a baby without proper medical care to die, have become masters of 

the manipulation of language, intimidation, and defaming their opponents to achieve their wicked aims. As a Nation, we are continuously exchanging the truth for a lie. We have neglected our soul. 

And what will it take for us to awaken from our numbness and indifference regarding this? Will we ever awake? 

I am confounded as well by the passivity so often demonstrated 

by otherwise good and just men, by the fact that we must plead 

with those in power to give the most vulnerable infants among us 

even one moment of their attention. 

This is a bipartisan issue, and I think it is important for the 

American people to weigh at this hour whether or not they wish 

to elect someone to the highest office in the land that favors infanticide, because that is what we are speaking of here, a child, exactly as I was, that had the audacity to live through her mother’s 

abortion and needed immediate and proper care. 
10 

So I would like to ask Mr. Trump to tell me, and you, where he 

specifically stands on this issue, and I would ask the same of Mrs. 

Clinton. I would also ask Senator Mitch McConnell to force a vote 

on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act before the end 

of this September. 

I have faced the consequences of our choices as a Nation, as evidenced by my cerebral palsy. So if you choose to do nothing, I believe I at least deserve to know why you find this abhorrent practice tolerable, and I would respectfully, respectfully ask that you 

tell me directly. 

It seems in some ways we have lost our way in this beautiful Nation. But it needn’t be so. We have only to remember that we are 

lent each breath, that we are all engraved upon the hands of God, 

and therefore cannot for one single moment be forgotten by him. 

We need only to remember Jesus, who took me from my mother’s 

womb to be his own. 

Thank you. 

[The testimony of Ms. Jessen follows:] 
11 

Prepared Statement of Gianna Jessen, Abortion Survivor 
12 
13 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Jessen. 

And I would now recognize our second witness, Ms. Plaster. 

And if you would turn on your microphone, please. 

TESTIMONY OF GENEVIEVE PLASTER, M.A., SENIOR POLICY 

ANALYST, CHARLOTTE LOZIER INSTITUTE 

Ms. PLASTER. Chairman Franks, Ranking Member Cohen, and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting 

me to testify before your Subcommittee during this hearing on ‘‘The 

Ultimate Civil Right: Examining the Hyde Amendment and Born 

Alive Infants Protection Act.’’ My name is Genevieve Plaster, and 

I am a senior policy analyst for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a research and education resource in Washington, D.C. 

Today, I will focus on the Hyde amendment and its measurable 

impact over the past 40 years. The Hyde amendment is an appropriations rider that prohibits the use of Federal funds for elective 

abortion or for health benefits that cover elective abortion. As a 

rider, it is not a permanent law, but it has been passed with bipartisan support in every Federal funding bill since 1976. 

Amidst legal challenges in its early years, the Hyde amendment 

was reaffirmed as constitutional in 1980 by the U.S. Supreme 

Court in Harris v. McCrae. Though a financial policy, the most important measurement of the Hyde Amendment’s real world effects 

has not been dollars saved but lives saved. By saying that the 

Hyde amendment has saved lives, I am referring to the prevented 

abortions due to women deciding to continue their pregnancies and 

give birth to their children in the absence of Federal funding. 

More than 20 peer-reviewed studies published in academic journals have found a reduction in abortion rates following the enactment of the Hyde amendment or other similar laws. Numerous 

studies also examining State data show not only the abortion rate 

decreased, but that the birth rate has increased. 

In fact, the Guttmacher Institute, formerly Planned Parenthood’s 

research arm, which in prior years received millions of funding 

from the business after still splitting with them, conducted its own 

literature review on the impact of the Hyde amendment on abortion rates in 2009. Because the decline in abortion was so clear, 

even the study’s authors were forced to acknowledge that the ‘‘best 

studies found 18 to 37 percent of pregnancies that would have 

ended in Medicaid-funded abortion were carried to term when public funding was no longer available.’’ We then rightly acknowledge 

that the Medicaid-funded births of these individuals are lives saved 

due to the Hyde amendment. 

In a forthcoming study, the Charlotte Lozier Institute’s associate 

scholar, Dr. Michael New, calculates the best estimate for how 

many lives have been saved by the Hyde amendment. With a rigorous methodology, Dr. New identified solid appropriately designed 

studies that examine the decrease of abortion rates following the 

enactment of a public funding limitation. 

Finding the average of decrease to be 1.52, he applies this rate 

to State-specific data, namely the number of years and months that 

each State has had the implementation, as well as each State’s 

abortion rate. 
14 

The study’s major conclusion is that the Hyde amendment has 

saved more than 2 million lives since 1976, 2 million Americans. 

That is approximately the entire population of the city of Houston, 

the fourth-largest city in the U.S. Two million Americans is the entire population of the State of New Mexico. 

From another angle, the study also calculated that the Hyde 

amendment saves approximately 60,000 lives each year. Among 

just the seven States that each of you and your constituents call 

home, the Hyde amendment has saved approximately 700,000 lives 

since its enactment. That is, in Arizona, 55,000 lives were saved; 

in Florida, 166,000; in Iowa, 33,000; in Ohio, 131,000; in Tennessee, 66,000; in Texas, the highest number of lives saved at nearly a quarter million, 248,000. And finally in New York, regretfully, 

no lives have been saved due to the Hyde amendment because the 

State has had State-funded abortion since 1976 till today. 

This real world impact bears repeating. In just these seven 

States represented, 700,000 lives have been saved by the Hyde 

amendment. 

From another perspective, CLI scholar Dr. New explains that we 

can also say one in nine people born under Medicaid in a State that 

does not have a Medicaid-funded abortion program was saved 

thanks to the Hyde amendment. 

Lest we lose sight of the qualitative reality of 2 million lives, let 

us consider a brief story of Claire, a young woman who experienced 

an unplanned pregnancy at age 17. In a recent news article that 

was just published the other week, she said that at that time, ‘‘I 

felt hopeless and alone.’’ She explained that if Medicaid funding for 

an abortion had been available to her, it would have been very 

tempting to go ahead and have that abortion. 

Instead, she reached out for support, was accompanied to a pregnancy care center, where she saw the first ultrasound of her young 

son, and decided to continue this pregnancy. Now, a year later, 

Claire reflects, ‘‘I don’t know what I would do without him. That 

is my baby.’’ 

Of the 2 million lives saved by the Hyde amendment, one can 

only wonder how many other of the mothers were in a similar situation. 

In conclusion, the Hyde amendment has enjoyed bipartisan support for 40 years, was reaffirmed as constitutional in 1980, enjoys 

support from nearly 7 in 10 Americans, including even 51 percent 

of those who identify as pro-choice, 44 percent of those who are 

Democrats, 65 percent of African Americans, 61 percent of Latinos, 

and finally and most importantly, has saved an estimated 2 million 

lives. 

For these compelling reasons, the protective language of the 

Hyde amendment should not only be retained as enforced policy 

but should also be codified as permanent law. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

[The testimony of Ms. Plaster follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Plaster. 

And I would now recognize our third witness, Ms. Johnson. 

And, Ms. Johnson, if you would make sure that microphone is 

turned on. 

TESTIMONY OF KIERRA JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

UNITE FOR REPRODUCTIVE AND GENDER EQUITY (URGE) 

Ms. JOHNSON. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today to speak about the Hyde amendment, one 

of our Nation’s most harmful and shameful policies, one that singles out low-income women and interferes with their personal decision about whether to end a pregnancy. 

My name is Kierra Johnson, and I am the executive director of 

URGE, Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity, and as a steering committee member of the All Above All campaign, a campaign 

led by more than 150 reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations united to lift the bans on abortion coverage. 

Safe quality abortion services should be available, regardless of 

a woman’s ability to pay, her source of insurance, or where she 

lives. However, since the passage of the Hyde amendment in 1976, 

the appropriations process has been used as a vehicle to systematically deny meaningful access, access to poor women, and has expanded to harm many others. 

As a result of the Hyde amendment and its extended reach into 

similar restrictions, nearly 29 million women of reproductive age do 

not have insurance coverage of abortion. Each restriction, each ban 

is intended by anti-abortion politicians to further their ultimate 

goal of pushing abortion out of reach for as many people as possible. 

For those who are struggling to get by, disproportionately women 

of color, low-income women, young women, immigrant women, a 

coverage ban might as well be a ban on abortion altogether. Studies have shown that restricting Medicaid coverage of abortion 

forces one in four low-income women seeking abortion to carry an 

unwanted pregnancy to term. 

The Hyde amendment creates one of the most onerous barriers 

to abortion care. Just listen to the voices of those who have felt the 

impact of these bans. 

Kendall from Colorado says, ‘‘I found out I was pregnant, and I 

was deceived by the center I visited because it ended up being an 

anti-choice crisis pregnancy center. After that, I struggled for 

weeks to find resources, the last $200. I have been anxious, frantic, 

and terrified. My health has declined, and I believed there was little to no hope until today when I was finally able to access an abortion.’’ 

A second woman recounts, ‘‘Here is what it took for me to gather 

the money for my abortion. It was hard. It took 3 weeks. The payday loan I took out for my abortion wiped out my entire account. 

I got a 3-day notice on my apartment door, and things started to 

spiral out of control. And then, when I became evicted, I lived in 

a shelter temporarily.’’ 

As a Black woman, I am outraged that the morally bankrupt 

Hyde amendment has been permitted to persist for so long. It is 
21 

a source of pain for many women and should be a source of shame 

for those who support it. 

The time for policies that visit indignity and deprivation on 

women, including Black women is over. Last year, Representatives 

Barbara Lee, Diana DeGette, and Jan Schakowsky made history by 

introducing the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage and Health Insurance Act, the EACH Woman Act. This bold legislation respects 

that each of us, not just some of us, should be able to make our 

own decisions about pregnancy and prohibits politicians from interfering by withholding coverage for abortion care. With this bill, we 

are saying that all of us should have access to the same coverage 

and options, independent of income, ZIP code, or source of insurance. 

This legislation now has more than 120 cosponsors in the House 

and the support of the American people. Polling released last July 

shows that a majority of Americans would support a bill requiring 

Medicaid to cover abortion. 

A right without access isn’t a right at all. In the EACH Woman 

Act, I see the transformational power of centering the lives, struggles, and aspirations of those for whom the legal right to a safe 

abortion has not yet been made a reality. But that reality is within 

our reach. We can work together to build a future where women’s 

decisions are treated with respect and we can get the healthcare 

we need with dignity and compassion. 

Thank you. 

[The testimony of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

And I would now recognize our final witness, Ms. Grossu. 

And if you make sure that microphone is on. 

TESTIMONY OF ARINA O. GROSSU, M.A., DIRECTOR, CENTER 

FOR HUMAN DIGNITY, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL 

Ms. GROSSU. Chairman Franks, Ranking Member Cohen, and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I am grateful and 

honored to have been invited to testify today in support of the 

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. 

In 2000 and 2001, Jill Stanek testified before this Committee 

about her experience as a registered nurse where she discovered 

babies born alive after an attempted abortion and left to die in the 

department’s soiled utility closet. 

In 2002, Congress responded by passing the Born-Alive Infants 

Protection Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush and 

is current Federal law. It passed by voice vote in the House and 

with unanimous consent in the Senate. 

Unfortunately, incidents involving born-alive children being 

killed after an attempted abortion have continued after this law 

and into the present. 

Infanticide is unacceptable in a civilized society, regardless of 

what one may think about abortion itself. Up to 2010, abortionist 

Kermit Gosnell operated his dirty and dangerous abortion facility 

where he did hundreds of snippings of born-alive babies as part of 

his abortion process. The grand jury report noted many of the 

women ‘‘gave birth before he even got there. When you perform 

late-term ’abortions’ by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies...Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: He killed them...by sticking scissors 

into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord.’’ See, 

for example, the image of Baby Boy B, who was found in his facility. 

Federal and State authorities finally raided his facility not because he was illegally killing born-alive infants, but because of his 

illegal prescription drug activity. 

While Gosnell’s case was particularly gruesome, he is not an 

outlier. A former employee of current Texas abortionist Douglas 

Karpen described how he regularly killed babies born alive by snipping their spinal cords, fatally injuring them with blows to the soft 

spot on their heads, and twisting their necks. 

She said, ‘‘I am pretty sure I was seeing at least three or four 

large babies that were completely delivered in some way or another 

daily...When the fetus would come completely out, of course the 

fetus would still be alive, because it was still moving. Of course you 

could see the stomach breathing, and that is when he would do 

this.’’ 

Yet despite the gruesome photo and eyewitness evidence, Karpen 

was cleared in December 2013. 

The Center for Medical Progress, in its investigative videos, authenticated by an in-depth forensic analysis report, revealed a lot 

of evidence of babies killed after being born alive. For example, 

Perrin Larton, a procurement manager from Advanced Bioscience 

Resources, said, ‘‘The whole point is not to have a live birth. I lit-
27 

erally have women come in and say they will go into the OR and 

they are back out in 3 minutes, and I am going, ’What is going on?’ 

Oh, yeah, the fetus was already in the vaginal canal whenever we 

put her in the stirrups. It just fell out.’’ 

Holly O’Donnell, a former procurement technician with 

StemExpress, recounted one incident where her supervisor said, 

‘‘’Want to see something kind of cool?’ And she just tapped the 

heart and it started beating. And I am sitting here, and I am looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating.’’ 

Data that the CDC collects also confirms that babies are born 

alive after attempted abortions. Between the years 2003 and 2014, 

there were somewhere between 376 and 588 infant deaths under 

the medical code P96.4, which keeps track of babies born alive after 

the termination of pregnancy. 

The CDC concluded that of the 588 babies, 143 were definitively 

born alive after an attempted abortion, and they lived from minutes to 1 or more days, with 48 percent of babies living between 

1 to 4 hours. 

It also admitted that it is possible the number is an underestimate. We know it is an underestimate because these are just the 

reported numbers from hospitals, not from the abortion facilities. 

Gosnell is only one abortionist who is responsible for hundreds 

of snippings of born-alive babies, yet he did not report even one. 

His numbers alone exceed the definitive numbers of the CDC. 

Even one baby born alive after an attempted abortion who is 

then killed is one too many, but we are talking in hundreds of reported ones. Yet not one person, to date, has been charged or convicted under the current Federal law. 

Due to developments in technology, babies who are considered 

extremely pre-term can now survive outside the womb as early as 

20 and 21 weeks post-fertilization, recent science journals articles 

announced, with 67 percent surviving after receiving active care. 

Here, for example, is Lucas Moore, who was born at 21 weeks 

post-fertilization and 1 year later. Dr. David Burchfield, the chief 

of neonatology at the University of Florida, said, ‘‘It confirms that 

if you don’t do anything, these babies will not make it, and if you 

do something, some of them will make it.’’ 

This is why we need the proposed Born-Alive Act. It explicitly requires healthcare practitioners to treat born-alive abortion survivors with the same care they would treat any other born-alive 

baby and admit such babies immediately to the hospital. It provides enforcement mechanisms, such as criminal sanctions and 

penalties, to hold abortionists accountable for killing born-alive infants. And the bill also expressly excludes any prosecution of the 

mother of a baby born alive, and it gives her a private right of action to seek relief if the abortionist were to kill her born-alive baby. 

The White House has promised that it would veto the born-alive 

legislation, citing it would have a chilling effect. I cannot think of 

a more chilling effect than continuing to let U.S. abortionists commit infanticide. 

Born-alive babies after attempted abortion are already recognized as legal persons since the 2002 born-alive law. The proposed 

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act simply recognizes the 

obligations that follow from this reality, to ensure that babies born 
28 

alive after attempted abortions will be given the best medical care 

available and full and equal protection under our laws. I earnestly 

ask that you support this bill to stop infanticide in the United 

States. 

Thank you. 

[The testimony of Ms. Grossu follows:] 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Grossu. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Does the gentleman have a question? 

Mr. JORDAN. Would you yield for just a second. Mr. Chairman, 

I have got to run to a different Committee. I just wanted to thank 

our witnesses. 

Mr. FRANKS. Could I yield to the gentleman first? I think that 

there was a video that the gentleman was going to allow. Could I 

yield to the—I will yield to the gentleman first for questions. We 

will not begin our question time, and I will yield to the gentleman 

first. 

Mr. JORDAN. I don’t have a question. I just have to be at another 

hearing. 

Mr. FRANKS. Then would you yield for the video? 

Mr. JORDAN. I will yield for the video, sure. 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. If you will start the video there. Thank 

you, Mr. Jordan. 

What we will do, I will go ahead—what we are going to do is we 

are going to go ahead and suspend for the moment, and I will recognize Mr. DeSantis for 5 minutes. 

And thank you, Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, I have got to run out of here. I want to 

just thank all our witnesses, in particular Ms. Jessen for her powerful and compelling story. I have got to run to another hearing. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir, for being here. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 clarifies that infants who are born alive during abortions or attempted abortions 

are afforded all legal protections enjoyed by other persons in the 

United States. 

Would you support amendments to that Federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act to protect infants born into these incredibly 

vulnerable circumstances by providing a requirement that abortion 

providers or their staff immediately call 911 for an emergency 

transfer to a hospital of an infant born alive at a clinic in those 

circumstances? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I am not a medical professional, and what I do 

know is that there are leading medical organizations that have 

come out in opposition to this bill. I know that there has been testimony that has been provided for the record, and I think, for me, 

yielding to their expertise is where I would go. 

Mr. DESANTIS. But why would you—I mean, to me, it is not a 

question of—I mean, if you have an infant that is born alive, I 

mean, we have obviously had very powerful testimony, what would 

you lose by providing the infant treatment at that point? 

Ms. JOHNSON. We currently have laws that hold doctors to high 

standards of care in this country. So, for me, I don’t understand 

why we would necessarily need an additional law around this. But 

again, I am here as a witness around the Hyde amendment, and 

like I said, I think there is testimony around this. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, let’s talk about the Hyde amendment. 

Would you agree that from a policymaker’s perspective, if there is 

something that you don’t like and you tax it, you are likely to get 

less of it, correct? 
43 

Ms. JOHNSON. I am sorry. Can you restate that? 

Mr. DESANTIS. If there is something that you don’t like as a policymaker, cigarettes, let’s say, and you tax it, you will get less people to buy cigarettes, correct? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Not necessarily 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. So if you tax something, you get less of it. 

You disagree with that. I have think most economists would say 

that is connect. 

If you subsidize something, you then get more of it. Do you agree 

with that or no? 

Ms. JOHNSON. What I agree with is that women choose abortion 

services, and abortion—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. That is not what I asked, though. I asked that by 

providing taxpayer subsidies for something, you are likely to get 

more of that, correct? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I am not sure—I mean, are we talking about public insurance? 

Mr. DESANTIS. I am talking about generally. So, for example, I 

think your testimony, after listening to it, it seems to be that you 

are upset that there is not public money being provided for abortions, and to me, the takeaway from that is the policy outcome that 

you are seeking is to increase the number of abortions that are 

done in the United States. Is that accurate? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Why would you not get more if you are subsidizing the conduct? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Women choose abortion as a part of their health 

care. 

Mr. DESANTIS. But that has nothing to do—but that is a different question from whether the taxpayer should subsidize it. Yes, 

people have the ability to choose one way or another. People have 

the ability to choose to do other things in other aspects of life. The 

question is, is by putting the weight of the taxpayer behind something, you will inevitably lead to increases in abortions, will you 

not? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, the American public is in support of Medicaid covering a full range of pregnancy options. 

Mr. DESANTIS. That wasn’t the—that is not the question. I didn’t 

ask what the American public is for. I am saying, what you are arguing, I just want to tease out the implication, is that you are effectively arguing that we need to increase the amount of abortions 

that are conducted in the United States. 

Ms. JOHNSON. We need to increase the ability for women to make 

the decisions that they want to make. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, the ability is there. The question is, how 

you are going to apply the taxpayer’s use of tax dollars? And I 

think that by not answering the question, I think you have answered it, which is effectively, under your testimony, you would see 

more abortions in the United States. 

And it is a difference between whether you can get one or not. 

I think most people, even people on either side of the pro-life issue, 

there has been a general consensus in society we would like to reduce the number of abortions in any way that we can. 
44 

*Note: The submitted material is not printed in this hearing record but is on file with the 

Subcommittee, and can also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=105369 

So one final question just, Ms. Grossu, before my time has expired. 

Ms. Johnson, she said she wasn’t here to talk about the born 

alive, but she said, why would that be necessary? So I am going 

to ask you, why would we need to do amendments to the BornAlive Act? 

Ms. GROSSU. Thank you, Congressman. 

Essentially, there have been no prosecutions under current Federal law. So the Born-Alive Act, which passed in 2002, not one 

abortionist, not one facility has been convicted under this, although 

the CDC reports that there are at least 143 born-alive infants after 

attempted abortions. So what happened to those infants? Were 

they given care? 

And so the question is, this bill, what this bill does is it requires 

and it creates an enforcement mechanism so that if an abortionist 

does not provide immediate care to a born-alive infant, that that 

abortionist is going to have to face violations and fines and criminal penalties for this, and it protects the mother, too, from any 

kind of criminal penalties. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman, and I now recognize the 

Ranking Member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I would like to introduce for the record letters from 18 

health provider organizations, different religions, different medical 

specialties, et cetera, into the record. 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection.* 

Mr. COHEN. And then I would like to yield my time to the only 

woman who is here on the panel that can most appropriately ask 

questions on behalf of the majority—— 

Mr. FRANKS. All four of our panelists are women, of course. 

Mr. COHEN. I apologize, on the congressional panel, and who represents the majority population sexually in this country, Ms. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Congressman Cohen. I appreciate the time. 

And please excuse me. I will have to leave right after this because 

I have to catch my flight back to Los Angeles. 

I want to thank Kierra Johnson for testifying today and for 

bringing to light the negative impact that the Hyde amendment 

has on women all across the United States. For 40 years, the Hyde 

amendment has been used to deny a woman coverage for abortion 

just because she is poor; and because of social and economic inequality, women of color are even more disproportionately impacted. 

A low-income woman is able to use Medicaid for her healthcare 

needs, except in one area, abortion, due to the Hyde amendment. 

Because of the lack of funds, she is crippled from making one of 

most critical health decision she could ever make, a personal decision best made by her and her doctor and not politicians. 

In order to pay for the abortion, she may forego paying utility 

bills, rent, or food, or sell personal belongs, but then, due to the 
45 

time she uses raising the funds, she risks delays and a more difficult abortion. 

If that does not work, she may, in desperation, decide to seek a 

dangerous illegal abortion from an untrained or unlicensed practitioner. And if she cannot find the funds at all and goes on to give 

birth, she stands a greater chance of slipping deeper into poverty, 

finding no way out. 

Even though all American women have the constitutional right 

to an abortion, the Hyde amendment is a law that objectively stops 

low-income women from being able to exercise their full rights. 

We must ensure that every American woman can access their 

constitutional right to an abortion. We must end the Hyde amendment. 

Now, there are 15 States that have done this with a policy to 

cover abortion with State funds and who do so in practice. Women 

in these States are so fortunate because they can actually make decisions over their own lives. Unfortunately, this leaves the women 

who live in the rest of the 35 States with no alternative. 

But there is a bill in Congress that remedies this situation. Congresswoman Barbara Lee is the author of the EACH Woman Act. 

Her bill would ensure that abortion coverage is available not just 

for wealthy women, but for all women. Her bill would ensure that 

the constitutional rights of all women are upheld. 

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and to be one of 120 

cosponsors of this bill in the House of Representatives, all of whom 

believe that it is time for the Hyde amendment to end. 

And I would like to ask Kierra Johnson two questions. For one 

thing, there was a witness who said that the public supports the 

Hyde Amendment; however, it is my understanding that the public 

agrees that the Hyde amendment should end and that a woman 

should be able to determine her access to health care and abortion 

services. That is question number one. 

My other question is, under the Hyde amendment, States are 

permitted to use their own funds to provide abortion coverage to 

Medicaid recipients. Of course, 15 States have chosen to do this. Do 

you find that in these States that use their own funds women have 

overall better healthcare outcomes because of better access to family planning? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

It is true, the majority of Americans support the lifting of abortion bans, including the Hyde amendment, and they support that 

Medicaid cover a full range of pregnancy options, including abortion services. 

And when women have access to abortion, when they can afford 

abortion, the quality of life of women and their families improves. 

Studies are showing that. 

A woman who seeks an abortion but is denied is more likely to 

fall in poverty than one who obtains one. And I mentioned earlier 

in my testimony that the burden does fall hard on low-income 

women. Restrictions on Medicaid coverage of abortion forces one in 

four women, poor women, seeking an abortion to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. This also compounds other health disparities facing women of color and low-income women of color 

across the Nation. 
46 

And so the short answer is, yes, we do see improved quality of 

life for women, but not just women, for their families and for their 

children and for their communities. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentlelady. 

And I would now yield to Mr. King from Iowa for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses for your testimony. 

I would start with, as I listened to Mr. Cohen’s opening remarks, 

he said that, ‘‘Women have an undisputed right to abortion.’’ And 

that caught my ear, because I dispute that. I dispute the decision 

of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. I dispute the rationale that they 

contrived to or arrive at the decision that I think was preconceived, 

and then they created the legal rationale to get to their conclusion. 

And one of the rebuttals that I would offer for such a thing is 

that we know this: America was founded on the concept that our 

rights come from God. And when our rights come from God, how 

would it be possible that those rights could confer a right to kill 

a baby? 

And so I pose that question for deliberation, and I hope a lot of 

people across this country begin to think about the sacred nature 

of human life and about the moment that life begins. 

This right to choose being well settled is also a component of that 

opening statement, with which I disagree. It is not well settled. It 

has been a fight for 43 years, and it will be a fight until it is over. 

But what we are seeing is for the ultrasound, science expanding, 

watching babies move, burp, laugh, react to outside stimuli in the 

womb, the personalities that one can discern by seeing the 

ultrasound. 

I have a staff person in my Sioux City office, and I will give you 

his name. He is State Senator Bill Anderson. On his bookcase, he 

has framed the ultrasound of his first born. And he knew he was 

a father when he saw that. 

I would turn, first, to Ms. Plaster. And you gave us some valuable data, I believe. And some of this data—I would ask this question, of the roughly—and I don’t remember the name—the number 

you gave us, but roughly 60 million abortions have been committed 

in this country since Roe v. Wade or in that zone. If you have a 

more precise number, I am happy to hear it. But I wanted to ask 

you, what percentage of those abortions were Black babies? 

Ms. PLASTER. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

I do think I have a more—I think it is closer to about 55, 56 million abortions now since Roe v. Wade was decided. 

And to your question about how many of those, I can’t say that 

I have it in front of me at this moment, but I would be happy to 

look that up and provide it to the Subcommittee. 

Mr. KING. I would ask you to enter into the record if you would 

provide that information to this Committee. 

Ms. PLASTER. I will. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And how soon do you think you can do 

that. 

Ms. PLASTER. Today. 

Mr. KING. That would be excellent. 
47 

And would your estimation be that if the Black population is 12 

to 13 percent of the overall U.S. population, would you expect that 

that percentage of Black abortions would be greater or lesser than 

the representation in the overall population? 

Ms. PLASTER. Thank you. Studies have shown that it is greater, 

according to the CDC. And the Guttmacher Institute has even 

more accurate information, because the abortion centers give their 

information directly to Guttmacher. Many States do not have a 

mandatory law to submit abortion records to the CDC or their 

State health department. So according to Guttmacher, yes, it is, African Americans are disproportionately represented in the abortion. 

Mr. KING. Would you have any idea why that is not being called 

genocide by the Black community? 

Ms. PLASTER. Thankfully, I know that there are good pro-life organizations that—good pro-life Black organizations that are calling 

attention to this. And I know that, for instance, Ryan Bomberger 

has done a great job in calling attention to this as genocide. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Ms. Johnson, if one were to be there at the delivery of a litter 

of puppies, and as a puppy was partially delivered took a device 

and either crushed the skull or sucked the brains out of that baby, 

would you be committing a crime in most States? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I couldn’t speak to what is considered a crime with 

puppies. 

Mr. KING. If I asked you to research that and come back to this 

panel with a response in the fashion that Ms. Plaster has promised, could you do that? Would you do that? I know you could do 

that. Would you? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I could, and I could also talk to you about the research and the anecdotal information I have about Black communities. 

Mr. KING. And I think that is valuable information. Not the subject of this hearing. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I would love to talk about Black communities if 

you would like me to. 

Mr. KING. But I am asking you a specific question. Would you 

deliver that information to me? I have asked you if you believe that 

would be committing a crime in the several States. And I am going 

to ask you to answer this formally back to this Committee. 

But I would tell you the answer, and the answer is, yes, it would 

be. And the contrast is that as it stands, as you are advocating, you 

cannot do to a puppy what is now currently legal to do in America 

to a baby created in the image of God, and that is the center of 

this topic here today. 

I thank all the witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. 

And I would now yield to the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This has been a fascinating subject here that I didn’t realize was 

so emotional to so many people both on the panel and in the audience. 
48 

But let’s start with you, Ms. Johnson. I want to begin by asking 

you just to go over the impact that you think women of color receive and are affected by the Hyde amendment itself. Could you do 

that for me? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Certainly. Thank you, Congressman. 

Women of color, young women, low-income women are disproportionately affected by the Hyde amendment. The reality is that 

healthcare disparities exist for women of color, for people of color, 

across healthcare issues, and reproductive health is no different. A 

lack of health insurance, a lack of affordability of health care, 

meaning a lack of an ability to even think about paying out-ofpocket, a lack of sexual health information, a lack of access to contraceptive services, in addition to stigma and shame, right, compounds these issues. 

And that means higher rates of unintended pregnancy for women 

of color, which means we have to make sure that a full range of 

options, including abortion, are accessible, because when they are 

not, particularly for low-income women of color, there is a greater 

chance of them falling further and deeper in poverty. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Does the Hyde amendment, in your 

view, affect the quality of health care that low-income women receive? 

Ms. JOHNSON. The Hyde amendment prevents women from even 

being able to make a decision about their health care. So, yes. I 

mean, that alone, not being able to access, right, economically access the decision that you have made, the health care that you 

have chosen, of course that impacts the quality of health care. 

We just heard about how does this affect Black women and Black 

families and Black communities. The reality is that we cannot possibly think that helping Black women is going to happen by taking 

yet another opportunity to take decisionmaking away from them. 

That is not the way for us to support and respect Black women and 

Black families. 

Women of color want more access to health care, not more barriers to health care. They want more child care and affordable options of child care. Women want, particularly Black women, an answer to the high maternity mortality rates in our communities. 

And so the Hyde amendment means adding, right, it means providing a full range of options for women so that women can make 

the best decisions for their health care. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

My last question is how do you think legislators, we in Washington, are we best positioned to make decisions about a woman’s 

health and well-being, and how do we get better at it? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Abortion can be a complex issue, and people have 

opinions. People have feelings. People have thoughts. But however 

we feel about abortion, we should not deny poor women access to 

it because they are poor. 

So as legislators, creating ways that give decisionmaking back to 

women is a positive step forward. And the decisionmaking around 

reproductive health and rights issues, right, when we are making 

decisions about whether to be pregnant and whether to parent, give 

us the space and opportunity to be able to do that with our doctors, 
49 

with our loved ones, with our families, and in the context of the 

situations and circumstances we are in. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much for your responses and for 

being with us at this hearing. I think this is one of the ways that 

we will become more thoughtful about the complexity of abortion 

and what it means to low-income women. Thank you so very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. 

And I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I won’t be cheering today or clapping when I hear that, basically, 

the propaganda campaign that Margaret Sanger started, because 

she believed, she knew in her heart we will be better off if women 

who are poor and women of color are encouraged, pushed to have 

abortions, basically convince them to have genocide. It has worked. 

Of course, it disproportionately affects women of color and poor 

women. That is the design of abortion. That is the design of eugenics. 

And I would like to yield the rest of my time for a video. 

[video shown.] 

Mr. GOHMERT. I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. 

I am going to recognize myself now for 5 minutes for questions. 

I have had both the privilege and the burden of dealing with this 

issue for a very long time, because a long time ago I came to a very 

stark realization that these were really babies. And if I believed 

that we are all created equal, if I believed that every child is a 

child of God, if I believed that every child was important, then it 

became important to me to try to do what was possible to live out 

that ideal of the Founding Fathers that we hold these truths to be 

self-evident, that we are all created equal and that every person 

would have a chance to live. 

EDTR ROSEN 

Mr. FRANKS. And I don’t know how this debate has developed the 

way it has where Americans seem to be so at each other, because 

we have been here before. You know, a lot of times, my friends on 

the left, they attack us for using the example of Dred Scott. The 

reason that it is used so often is because it is so profoundly parallel. The Supreme Court comes along and says, the African American slave is not a person. And there were those who believed that 

wasn’t true. There were those that believed that this was a human 

being worthy of protection, and they stood up and did everything 

that they could to do that, to change that. And, finally, we changed. 

And now we look back, and there is not too many people that 

would argue that case anymore. They see the personhood. And 

sometimes when we finally see the humanity of the victim and the 

inhumanity of what is being done to them, somehow it begins to 

dawn on you. 

And I—I pray that somehow when we are talking about bornalive children, that a light goes on. That we realize if we are not 

going to protect born-alive babies, then we have allowed ourselves 

to be dragged into that Samarian night where the light of human 

compassion has gone out, and the survival of the fitness has pre-
50 

vailed over humanity. And I pray that day has not come to America. 

And I heard a testimony today that gave me great hope, because, 

Ms. Jessen, you are living proof that when babies survive abortion, 

they go on to bring a loving, noble message to humanity. And I 

just—I know you have said some things to our Committee here, but 

I would just ask if you have anything else that you would like to 

tell America regarding the protection of babies born alive that have 

survived abortion? 

Ms. JESSEN. Thank you, Congressman. I would like to thank you 

for being such a man of such great courage. 

And I would—I have been listening in the hearing today, after 

speaking, after explaining that I lived through an abortion. Often, 

when I am in the midst of abortion advocates, they never can answer this one question, and it is this: If abortion was merely 

about—is merely about women’s rights, then what were mine? And 

I have been listening to the great round of applause for the ending 

the lives of these children, but these very same people behind me 

applauding, I would like to tell you that if need be, I would lay my 

life down for you, because no greater love has a man than this, 

than to lay down his life for his friend. And so as I listen to you 

applaud for—for—for death, I want to tell you how valuable you 

are. 

And to America, I would say this, wake up. And, you know, we 

are so worried about every single other issue under the sun, and 

we—we don’t talk about this one. We are embarrassed by the social 

issues. We are embarrassed by the people that love God, and we 

are embarrassed by defending the most vulnerable among us, and 

we wonder why we have people killing each other. We have got our 

priorities wrong. We have abandoned God. We are embarrassed by 

him, and we will not remain free without him. 

So I would call on my Nation to repent. What a word. We don’t 

say that anymore. But I would call on my Nation to have—to—that 

God would wake us up. And—and—yeah. That is what I would say. 

I don’t feel it was quite articulate, but here you are. 

Mr. FRANKS. Your message is heard in the context of your life, 

my lady. 

I would like now to begin a second round of questions. 

And I would recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. And I appreciate our witnesses being 

here, and I mean all of them. It is important that people have a 

chance to speak what they believe. 

As a former attorney and judge and chief justice, I look at the 

way the law in America has developed. Most of us think the Dred 

Scott decision was perhaps the worst decision in American history. 

How in the world could people prevail before our highest court in 

the land by saying these slaves are my property. I paid for them. 

I own them. The U.S. Government has no right whatsoever to tell 

me what I can do with my own property any more than they can 

tell me what I can do with my own body. It is my right to own another person. And the Supreme Court, to their great shame, said 

that is right. This is your property. The U.S. Government has no 

right to interfere with what you choose to do with your property. 
51 

I would encourage, Mr. Chairman, people who think Margaret 

Sanger was a hero, to go back and look at the things that she advocated in the way of eugenics. She believed that people who were 

poor, people of color, were genetically flawed and, therefore, it was 

a good thing to push them to have abortions. And if they couldn’t 

be convinced, then, you know, forcibly sterilize them, because we 

need to be moving toward a higher plain of human being, not realizing that by what she advocated, she was bringing humanity down 

to the lowest possible level, the level of the animal kingdom where 

you can kill or destroy if it suits you. 

So we have heard about the inappropriate intervention into 

healthcare decisions. And I struggle with the disparity in the argument that says no one should ever inappropriately intervene in a 

healthcare decision on behalf of a woman, and yet, we will tell that 

same woman later in life, Sorry, under ObamaCare, if you are too 

old to get a pacemaker—as the President himself said, you are better off just saying take a pain pill. You don’t get a pacemaker. 

There seems to be a disparity in thinking that you—we would advocate you can’t intervene and say the life you are carrying, if delivered alive, even if you are trying to destroy that life, or as the 

doctor indicated for late-term abortions, you pull one leg off then 

you pull the other leg off then you pull the arm off then you pull 

the other arm off. And as you have heard him describe before, you 

reach in with the clamps for something bulbous, and you know you 

have the skull. You rip that off. 

And as Mr. King was trying to point out, anybody who does those 

things to a puppy, everybody in the country would be demanding 

they go to prison. But we have elevated this procedure to such a 

high level that the highest court in the land could say, Hey, that 

baby is your property. You can do whatever you want with it. 

So I won’t be cheering today. I will remain broken hearted for 

my country and for the success Margaret Sanger has had in advocating for eugenics and genocide and this country’s participation in 

what she hoped to achieve. 

I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. 

And I now yield to Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This has been an unusual hearing in a number of respects, but 

I would like to ask Ms. Johnson just one question, because over the 

past several years, there have been a marked increase in the number of States passing targeted regulations for abortion providers 

making it practically impossible, certainly a lot, lot more difficult 

for safe abortions to occur and other legislative measures designed 

to impede women’s safe and legal medical care. 

Can you discuss the impact, in your view, that such laws have 

had on low-income women? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. 

You are right, there are trap laws. Women have to often travel 

hundreds of miles because over 89 percent of counties don’t have 

an abortion provider. There are also waiting periods which force 

women to wait additional days after they have already made a 

choice in health care. 
52 

And the Hyde amendment exacerbates the barriers that already 

exist for low-income women or any woman who is seeking abortion 

services. 

It is interesting that we are bringing up slavery in this space. 

When you own somebody’s decisionmaking, you own them. When 

you get to decide for them whether or not their body has value, you 

own them. When you decide they are valuable as black or not, you 

actually don’t get to make that decision. We are valuable, and 

women are valuable. 

The Hyde amendment simply says set us free. We are not simple 

minded. We are not being duped. Women are choosing to be pregnant and have children. The majority of women who have abortion 

are parents. They care. They care about their families. 

The Hyde amendment is about increasing coverage of insurance. 

It is about returning decisionmaking back to women. It is about 

setting us free. 

Mr. CONYERS. Do you think we should consider repealing the 

Hyde amendment or move forward with other legislation since— 

since we are closing out this subject? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. We should repeal the Hyde amendment. 

There are a lot of support from the American people. 

As a matter of fact, there’s strong support among millennials, 

among African Americans, and Latino voters in particular, with 

millennials supporting the EACH Woman Act at 66 percent; African American supporting at 68 percent, and Latinos supporting at 

55 percent. So, yes, I think we need to repeal the Hyde amendment. And I think we need to pass the EACH Woman Act, and the 

American people agree. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. And I will now yield 

to myself for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Grossu, I will begin with you. Will you, please, talk about 

the ironic juxtaposition between the amount of medical care available to a premature baby who is wanted and a live premature baby 

who is as a result of an abortion and deemed unwanted. 

Ms. GROSSU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for sure. 

I would, first, like to make the distinction too that abortion is not 

health care. Killing your own child is not health care, and American taxpayers should not be funding this. And there is no such 

thing as a safe abortion either. Abortion is a very dangerous procedure. Having said that, I will go to your—your question. 

Essentially, a premature baby now can survive at 20 weeks post 

realization if given proper care and treatment, is—is able to make 

it. And this kind of care is being held in an incubator or being 

given oxygen using a little infant oxygen mask, even being kept 

warm to maintain body temperature of the baby. These types of 

treatments are given to babies because a woman decides that she 

wants that child. So that child’s value is dependent on a person— 

another person’s opinion of that child. 

So if the woman wants her child, that baby is going to be given 

the absolute best care that our medical communities have. And if 

that woman deems that she does not want that child, that child is 

thrown in the trash, as we have seen time and time again, as Jill 
53 

Stanek has expressed, as the videos—we have seen the videos that 

the child is taken apart and the baby’s body parts are being sold 

on the market. 

And so we are asking under this born-alive bill, that abortionists 

be required to give basic immediate care to a baby once that baby 

has taken his or her first breath. This—these are children who are 

outside of the vaginal canal. They are recognized as legal persons 

under our laws, and they should be protected. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Ms. Grossu. 

You know, I think that is—the profundity of all of this at times 

for me is that somehow, how do we separate the wanted child from 

the unwanted child. It occurs to me that if we say that that child 

is unwanted, that we say nothing about the child. We say only 

about something about those of us around the child. 

And if, indeed, we have come to the point where what gives a 

child the right to live and the right to protection is being wanted 

or unwanted, then all the dreams of the Founding Fathers are lost, 

and all of the things that those people out in Arlington National 

Cemetery died to preserve are lost. Because America’s founding 

dream was this notion that all of us were created equal and these 

were rights given by God that this thing was a miracle, and that 

to secure that right, that is the reason governments came about. 

And that it had its power from consent of the government. 

You know, there is no way to articulate the tragedy of even losing even one little child. But I would suggest to you that something 

else is lost here, and that is it is not the dying that leaves scars, 

it is the killing. And when we create this stone in our hearts and 

in our conscious to where we are able to say this born-alive child 

is only protectable if they are wanted. 

Do you understand where we have come to as Americans? Do you 

understand what’s left? If we don’t want to protect a born-alive 

child, then who—who should we protect? If killing a born-alive 

child is not wrong, then on what basis do we say anything is 

wrong? What protection do any of us have when, as a society, we 

harden our hearts to the extent that we will stand by and advocate 

and say it is a right to kill a born-alive child, and there should be 

no protection for that child? 

I do fear for my country. And I pray that somehow in the days 

ahead, that our country will begin to consider who we are. I would 

call upon Donald Trump to say who he is on this issue on bornalive protection. I would call on Hillary Clinton to do the same 

thing. I would call on the U.S. Senate to bring this bill up for a 

vote. Because if—if we are no longer committed to protecting bornalive children, then it is time to board the place up that we are in 

and go home, because the battle is lost. And this ideal that all of 

us were created equal and are children of God have slipped from 

us. And I for one do not believe that. 

I believe that Americans are still protectors of children. I believe 

that America’s best days are still ahead. And I believe that some 

of the testimony we have had here today is the most compelling 

that I have heard in a long time. 

And I would just say to those of you that disagree, there is no 

hate in my heart toward you. But I would also say to something 

that William Wilberforce said a long time. He said—and he was 
54 

talking about slavery. He said, you can turn away, but you can 

never again say that you did not know. Today, you know that bornalive children are dying, and there are those of us trying to protect 

them. And I only pray that somehow that as it has happened somehow in the past in America, that we come to the conclusion that, 

you know what, this is not who we are, and we still hold these 

truths to be self-evident, that we are all created, and that makes 

us a miracle, and that is worth protecting. 

So thank you, all, for coming today. That concludes this Committee hearing. 

And I have a little script here. Without objection, all Members 

will have 5 legislative days to submit additional requests for the 

witnesses for additional materials for the record. 

And with that, God bless you all. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(55) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
56 

Response to Hearing Question from Genevieve Plaster, M.A., 

Senior Policy Analyst, Charlotte Lozier Institute 

f 
57 

Letter from Melissa Ohden, Founder, The Abortion Survivors Network 
58 
59 
60 

f 
61 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 
62 
63 
64 
65 

Æ