U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

56–947 WASHINGTON : 2024

S. HRG. 117–896 

A POST–ROE AMERICA: THE LEGAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE DOBBS DECISION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 12, 2022 

Serial No. J–117–67 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

www.judiciary.senate.gov 

www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

ALEX PADILLA, California 

JON OSSOFF, Georgia 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking 

Member 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOSEPH ZOGBY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN L. DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Durbin, Hon. Richard J. .......................................................................................... 1 

Grassley, Hon. Charles E. ....................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Bridges, Khiara M. .................................................................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Responses to written questions ....................................................................... 92 

Harle, Denise ........................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Responses to written questions ....................................................................... 99 

Matzke, Heidi ........................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80 

Responses to written questions ....................................................................... 102 

McNicholas, Dr. Colleen P. ..................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Straton, Hon. Juliana, Lieutenant Governor of Illinois ....................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85 

Responses to written questions ....................................................................... 105 

APPENDIX 

Items submitted for the record ............................................................................... 47 

(1) 

A POST–ROE AMERICA: THE LEGAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE DOBBS DECISION 

TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2022 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice at 9:59 a.m., in Room 

106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, Chair 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Feinstein, Whitehouse, 

Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, Padilla, Ossoff, 

Grassley, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, Tillis, and Blackburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Chair DURBIN. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

will come to order. I usually defer to the presence of Senator Grassley, my colleague on the Committee, but he is running a few minutes late, and so he has given me permission to begin, and I will 

certainly recognize him when he arrives. 

A little over 2 weeks ago, the Alito Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The majority overturned nearly five decades of precedent, holding that the 

United States Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to an 

abortion, reversing both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. 

Casey. This case represents the first time in America’s history that 

the Supreme Court has revoked a constitutionally protected right. 

The first time. As a result, a woman’s personal decision to make 

her own reproductive health care choices is no longer protected or 

guaranteed by the Constitution. 

In the words of Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer, the conservative majority has, quote, ‘‘consigned women to second class 

citizenship.’’ In overturning Roe, the Supreme Court has unleashed 

a health care crisis across America. Make no mistake, women’s 

health, and in some cases their lives, are at risk. 

Today, the Committee will examine the very real consequences 

of the Court’s unprecedented decision. We’ll start with a video. 

[Video presentation.] 

Since the Dobbs decision, at least 10 States have banned abortion. More are expected to join them. The bans we’ve seen include 

insufficient and confusing exceptions for the life of the mother. 

Many do not even provide exceptions for rape or incest. When they 

do, they are unwieldy and inadequate. 
2 

What exactly do these efforts to ban abortion mean in the real 

world? They mean that a woman facing complications in pregnancy 

could die waiting in the hallway of a hospital because a doctor 

must weigh the risk of jailtime against making the best decision 

for the health of the patient. That means that individuals in organizations who help someone travel to a State like my State of Illinois, where abortion is legal, may face legal liability. Consider a 

letter sent to the Sidley Austin Law Firm last week, by a group of 

conservative Texas lawmakers, which threaten to, quote, ‘‘impose 

additional civil and criminal sanctions on law firms that pay for 

abortions or abortion travel.’’ 

Some Republican State lawmakers have even sought to punish 

women seeking abortions. For example, in Louisiana, Republican 

legislators sought to advance a bill in May that would have subjected women who terminate pregnancy to charges of criminal 

homicide. 

In his majority opinion, Justice Alito claims that by overturning 

Roe and Casey, the Court was simply returning power to decide 

how abortion may be regulated to the States. But Dobbs raises 

many questions with no answers, leaving health care providers and 

patients to navigate new restrictions that will likely and rightfully 

face further constitutional challenge. For example, in his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh insists that the State cannot infringe on the, quote, ‘‘constitutional right to interstate travel,’’ close 

quote. It seems some State Republican lawmakers didn’t get the 

message. They are proposing bills that will turn their State borders 

into Checkpoint Charlies for patients seeking abortions out-ofstate. 

In a post-World War America, it is not only abortion rights that 

are in peril. Other constitutional rights are under threat, and that’s 

not my conclusion. It’s Justice Clarence Thomas’ conclusion. According to him, your constitutional right to privacy is a fiction. In 

his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas declares that a court 

should, quote, ‘‘eliminate the constitutional rights to birth control, 

marriage equality, and consensual relationships between LGBTQ 

people,’’ close quote. This radical, regressive vision for America is 

eroding the Court’s institutional integrity. 

This comes in the aftermath of Republican Leader McConnell’s 

blocking President Obama’s right to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. President Donald Trump pledged to appoint nominees who 

would’ve overturned Roe v. Wade. That was the box each one of 

them had to check with the Federalist Society before they could appear before this Committee. 

Today, three in four Americans say they have lost faith in the 

Supreme Court, a record low. It’s easy to see why. Families are living in fear that some of their most cherished rights are now on the 

conservative chopping block. So, what are we going to do to protect 

these rights? What are we going to do to defend women who have 

already had their rights revoked? 

We know the Republican plan, win control of Congress and impose a Federal ban on abortion. The Republican leader said as 

much. Democrats have a different plan. Protect your rights by entering a —entering a Federal statutory right to abortion. In fact, 

that’s exactly what the vast majority of Americans support, keep-
3 

ing access to abortion legal. A woman’s choice to get an abortion 

is her choice alone. Politicians have no business sitting in the waiting room with the doctor. With that, I’ll turn to Ranking Member 

Grassley for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very important hearing. I cast my first pro-life vote February 1972 as a 

Member of the Iowa House of Representatives. There was a motion 

before the House to repeal Iowa’s ban on abortion. I was 1 of 44 

people in a 44 to 44 vote, that voted not to repeal that bill, and 

obviously on a 44 to 44 vote, it didn’t happen. The next year, we 

had Roe v. Wade, and it was never an issue with Iowa legislature 

until potentially it could be now as a result of Roe’s overturn. 

We’re here today because the Supreme Court has corrected a 

wrong that has impacted millions of lives since 1973. We’re here 

because the Supreme Court, in a meticulous and well-reasoned 

opinion, returned the decision of abortion back to the States. For 

many Americans this decision is about far more than correcting a 

flawed legal analysis in Roe. It means protecting the rights of the 

unborn. This ruling doesn’t ban the practice of abortion, but instead empowers the people, through their accounted elected Representatives to make common sense policy decisions. It takes policy 

out of the hands of unelected judges. 

I understand with a decision of this magnitude comes differences 

of opinion and robust debate on the next steps. That’s okay, and 

I welcome that. We live in a democracy, and with differences of 

opinion and passion for policies, all of that followed by thoughtful 

debate, can lead us to the best outcomes for the American people. 

However, the treatment of Supreme Court Justices, pregnancy 

centers, and conservative women has been outrageous since Dobbs 

decision was leaked. Remember this: 8 out of 10 Americans do not 

support abortion on demand, right up to the time of birth. 

First, regardless of views on this issue, we should all respect the 

role of our impartial Judiciary and the decisions that it renders. 

Seeking to intimidate or attack the Court or undermine its credibility because of an outcome that you don’t agree with is dangerous—dangerous, and that’s not an answer. 

Justices have had their addresses published online, have been 

subjected to illegal pressure campaigns at their family homes, and 

one Justice was even the victim of an attempted assassination. I’ve 

called on the Justice Department to enforce the law and protect the 

Justices and their families from these very real threats. The lack 

of a response from both the Justice Department and the White 

House is extremely, extremely disappointing. 

Along with the threats against the Justices, threats against prolife, and crisis pregnancy centers have dramatically increased since 

the leak of the Dobbs decision, by pro-abortion extremists such as 

Jane’s Revenge and Ruth Sent Us. They’ve been—there’s been at 

least 40 violent attacks on crisis pregnancy centers, religious institutions, and other pro-life entities since the Dobbs leak, and before 

the Court even issued its final opinion. 

[Poster is displayed.] 
4 

The first pictures I have with me is a crisis pregnancy center in 

North Carolina that was vandalized with pro-abortion and proAntifa graffiti. That is in the corner—in the corner is the Antifa 

sign. Another one in Oregon was set on fire, causing significant 

damage, as you can see behind me. I pray for these centers and the 

thousands of patients they serve every day. 

I encourage all of my Colleagues, as well as myself, to condemn 

the violence and vandalism. I want to ensure that these violent attacks are recognized by the FBI, and are being properly investigated for what they are, cases of abortion related violent extremism. Let me be clear, very clear, threats and violence are not the 

answer. 

I also want to bring your attention to the incredible group of 

women that we have here with us today. We know women have 

been the center of the pro-life movement, and tirelessly advocating 

for the lives of the unborn and the well-being of mothers everywhere. I’d like to introduce to you a few of these women in addition 

to our witnesses, who I’ll introduce in a moment. 

We have here with us today, Dr. Christine Francis. Dr. Francis 

is an OB/GYN in Indiana. She’s chair of the Board of the American 

Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and a board 

member of the Indiana Right to Life. Dr. Francis spent time working with orphans in Romania and Burma and working for 3 years 

as the only OB/GYN at a mission hospital in rural Kenya. She has 

dedicated her life, professionally and personally, to treating 

women, protecting the lives of the unborn, and educating people on 

the dangers of the abortion industry. We are also fortunate to have 

someone like her in the practice of medicine. 

Also, Dr.—also, Catherine Gleen Foster—Catherine Glenn Foster 

with us, who has in the past been a witness before this Committee. 

She serves as president and CEO of the Americans United for Life. 

Catherine often shared her story of having an abortion at 19, due 

to the extreme emotional and psychological pressure she faced. 

Catherine felt alone after her decision. I’m sorry for the loss that 

you experienced, Catherine, and I hope that we can do better to 

give young women the love and support they deserve, no matter 

what. 

Janet Durig is the executive director of the Capitol Hill Pregnancy Center, just down the road from us a short way. Capitol Hill 

Pregnancy Center provides compassionate care, as well as complete, accurate information pertaining to pregnancy and pregnancy 

options. They, too, also have dealt with vandalism of their clinic. 

However, they continue to provide services such as counseling and 

childbirth and parenting classes. Thank you, Janet, for the work 

that the center does to serve those in the DC area who need support the most. 

I also want to thank representatives of the incredible groups that 

we have here today, March for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, Concerned Women of America, Iowa Catholic Bishops, Family Research 

Council, to name a few. You all also do incredible work in zealously 

advocating for the lives of the unborn, as well as women’s health, 

and for that I thank you. 

Let’s have a productive discussion today, on how we can best 

support women and families coming forward. But, as I said before, 
5 

threatening Justices, pregnancy centers, and churches is not the 

answer. I hope the extreme rhetoric that gives rise to this violence 

won’t be a part of our conversation today. Mr. Chairman, I’d like 

to request to enter into the record the statements from Live Action 

and the American Association of Pro-Life and Obstetricians and 

Gynecologists. Thank you. 

Chair DURBIN. Without objection. Let me start on a positive and 

bipartisan note, in light of your opening statement, Senator Grassley. I have stated time and again, political violence, in furtherance 

of any cause is unacceptable, period. No matter who commits it, no 

matter what theology fuels it. I condemn all violence and threats 

of violence in the strongest possible terms, whether the targets are 

pregnancy counseling centers or abortion clinics, period. Violence is 

never an appropriate form of protest. 

This Committee has passed legislation that will protect our 

judges, and I’m glad we did it. I’m sorry to say that one of the most 

important bills, the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy 

Act, which would give the Supreme Court Police greater discretion 

in protecting the Justices and their families, among other provisions to protect judges, has been held up on the floor. I can say 

that the person holding it up is a junior Senator, Republican Senator from Kentucky. I think it’s a serious mistake. Lives are at risk 

as we fail to put this into law and to give even more resources to 

the judiciary to protect their members. 

Today we welcome five witnesses, and I thank them for joining 

us. Before we swear them in, I’ll briefly introduce the Democratic 

witnesses, then turn to Senator Grassley to introduce the Republican witnesses. 

Our first witness is Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton. She’s the 48th Lieutenant Governor in the history of our State. 

She previously served as a Member of the Illinois House of Representatives, and I’m grateful for you traveling here, Lieutenant 

Governor. 

Professor Khiara Bridges, professor of law at the University of 

California Berkeley School of Law. I also want to thank Professor 

Bridges’ mother, Deborah, who is here celebrating her birthday. I 

understand she’s in the audience and we welcome her. 

Dr. Colleen McNicholas is an OB/GYN and the chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis region, in Southwest 

Missouri. Thanks for joining us today, Dr. McNicholas. 

Let me turn to Senator Grassley, before I administer the oath, 

for his introductions. 

Senator GRASSLEY. My first person is Denise Harle. Ms. Harle 

serves as senior counsel Alliance Defending Freedom, where she is 

director of the Center for Life. In this role, Ms. Harle leads her 

team’s litigation and advocacy effort to defend pro-life legislation 

around the country. She also networks with pro-life allies, speaks 

publicly on behalf of her organization, and works to defend the 

First Amendment freedoms of pro-life health care professionals and 

pregnancy resource centers. Since joining ADF, Ms. Harle took the 

primary role in drafting the briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court in 

NIFLA v. Becerra, resulting in a free speech victory for California 

pro-life pregnancy centers. We welcome you. 
6 

Next, we have Heidi Matzke. Ms. Matzke is executive director of 

the Alternative Pregnancy Center and has worked with them for 

7 years. The center is a non-profit, pro-life women’s medical clinic, 

which seeks to address the holistic aspect of an unplanned pregnancy, including the medical, emotional, material, and spiritual 

needs of the mother. These services are free through the clinic. The 

center provides pregnancy tests, ultrasound, abortion pill reversals, 

STD testing and treatment, prenatal care, gynecological care, abortion recovery classes, and contraceptive education. Prior to working 

at the center, Ms. Matzke worked as director of health services for 

the Christian Financial Strategies. We welcome you, as well. 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Let me explain the 

traditional procedure before the Committee. Each of the witnesses 

will be given 5 minutes for an opening statement. Then Members 

will be recognized in order for 5 minutes of questioning. Before we 

proceed though, I ask the witnesses to please stand and raise their 

right hand for the administration of an oath. 

[Witnesses are sworn in.] 

Let the record reflect that all five witnesses answered in the affirmative. Now for their opening statements, I first recognize Lieutenant Governor Stratton. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JULIANA STRATTON, 

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman 

Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and the distinguished Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. I’m Juliana Stratton, Lieutenant Governor of the great 

State of Illinois, and I use she/her pronouns. 

Since coming into office, Governor J.B. Pritzker and I have been 

focused on the health, safety, and access to opportunities for all 

women of Illinois, of all backgrounds and ages. One way that we’ve 

worked to make that a reality is by preserving and protecting legal 

abortion in Illinois. In 2019, Governor Pritzker signed the Reproductive Health Act, which enshrined reproductive rights into State 

law, repealed outdated laws criminalizing abortion, and requires 

private health insurance plans to cover abortion as the vital reproductive health procedure that it is. 

We made a vow that our State will be a beacon of hope for all. 

This was a promise that we made to the people of Illinois, and I 

come before you today because people throughout the entire Midwest are relying on our commitment to protect and preserve women’s rights, namely, the right to an abortion. 

It is no secret that Illinois stands out as one of the only States 

in the U.S. heartland, where our laws on legal abortion have not 

been impacted by the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. 

We are not just an oasis of reproductive care but an island, and 

here’s what that looks like. It looks like disenfranchised, yet determined patients coming from every surrounding State, but also from 

as far away as Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida. 

It looks like the entire staff of our State’s abortion clinics fielding 

phone calls for appointments, because the number of out-of-state 

patients have doubled since Roe v. Wade was overturned. That’s on 
7 

top of the nearly 10,000 women, who already came to Illinois seeking abortion care, according to 2020 data by the Illinois Department of Public Health. 

In the coming months and years, these numbers will inevitably 

increase, and sadly, too, will the preventable suffering and pain of 

women and families across the Nation, facing the negative ramifications of a post-Roe America. Because of the history of systemic 

racism, we know that inequities are amplified within the Black and 

Latinx communities. A post-Roe America will be devastating for 

Black women, who’s maternal mortality rate is already two to three 

times higher than that of white women, because of structural racism and misogyny. One study projects that without safe and legal 

access to abortions, that number will increase by over 30 percent 

among Black women, and nearly 20 percent for Hispanic women. 

Let’s take a moment to just let that sink in. 

We are facing a future rife, with needless death, despite 61 percent of Americans believing abortion should be legal in most or all 

cases, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in 

March 2022. It’s hard to overestimate just how devastating the outcome of this ruling is and will be, despite our years of preparation. 

Before the threats to Roe v. Wade were fully realized, Illinois was 

proactive, upholding bodily autonomy and protecting the right to 

an abortion. Still, the overturning of Roe v. Wade has sent us down 

a dark, agonizing path. The Supreme Court’s decision does not, 

quote, ‘‘leave abortion up to the States,’’ when every State will be 

impacted. To be clear, this means that every city, town, county, 

urban, suburban, and rural, and our rural and unincorporated 

areas already experience inequities when it comes to accessing 

health care overall. The weight of this ruling will surely be felt 

across State borders. 

In Illinois, and in States like ours, we are bracing for what is to 

come, as these diverse communities across the Nation turn to us. 

Governor Pritzker called on the President to move forward on key 

items that will address how States like ours will be affected, like 

creating a centralized hub for providers and patients to ease the 

burden on facility capacity amid higher demand. Most of all, Illinois and other States with legal abortion need more access to Federal money to support demand. 

I commend President Biden for the steps he has taken to safeguard access to reproductive care through executive order on Friday, which included actions to expand access to contraceptives. 

This is a great start. In Illinois, all hands are on deck, as we brace 

for what is coming, because we know we are the only lifeline for 

so many, after so much has been taken away from women, from the 

American people. I say this, not just as the Lieutenant Governor 

of Illinois, but as a mother of four daughters, my daughters who 

now have fewer rights than I had. 

In Illinois, excuse me—based on Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion, it is likely this may not be the last rights that will 

be stripped from future generations, as access to contraceptives and 

the right to love and marry who you choose, have already come 

under threat with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In Illinois, we 

will not go back. We will not be silent or stand on the sidelines, 

and I thank Governor Pritzker, Illinois’ legislative leaders, and our 
8 

State’s General Assembly, and all the community advocates who 

have joined forces to ensure just that. We already know how dangerous it is to turn back the clock of progress, and I ask each of 

you, as leaders, help us push forward, before it’s too late. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Lieutenant Governor Stratton appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you for your statement, Lieutenant Governor. We extended the period for your statement a little bit, and 

the same courtesy will be extended to all of the witnesses. Ms. 

Harle. 

STATEMENT OF DENISE HARLE, SENIOR 

COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER 

FOR LIFE, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM, 

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 

Ms. HARLE. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and 

Members of the Committee, I’m Denise Harle, senior counsel and 

director of the Center for Life at Alliance Defending Freedom. The 

Dobbs decision provides tremendous hope for women and unborn 

children across this country. For the first time in half a century, 

the people, through our elected representatives, have the legal authority to affirm the dignity of women and fully protect unborn babies. The Supreme Court was correct to overrule its egregious decision in Roe v. Wade, where seven male justices insulted women’s 

dignity by saying that motherhood forces upon us a distressful life 

and future. 

I am here today with my own mom and my precious 4-monthold baby girl, and I have two children at home. I join with millions 

of mothers nationwide in saying that the ruling in Roe was a 

shameful, dehumanizing, and false characterization of the role that 

women and moms hold in our society. I know that every woman’s 

story is unique, and for that some women finding out you’re pregnant is very difficult and unwelcome news. But pregnancy is not 

a barrier to success, and motherhood doesn’t ruin a woman’s 

chance to have a happy, fulfilled life. To say otherwise is demeaning and degrading. 

Dobbs was also a victory for the Constitution. As the decision explains, nothing in our Constitution’s text, history, or structure supports a so-called right to abortion. Even constitutional law scholars 

who are pro-abortion have admitted this. Harvard Law Professor 

Laurance Tribe said Roe was a verbal smoke screen, and that the 

substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found. The 

late pro-abortion icon, Justice Ginsburg, called Roe a heavy-handed 

judicial intervention that was difficult to justify, and legally, scientifically, morally, it is. 

Under the Roe regime, the United States became an extreme 

outlier in abortion law. Seventy-five percent of nations around the 

world don’t permit elective abortion at all, or at most limit it to 12 

weeks. Under Roe, the United States joined a handful of countries, 

including human rights abusers China and North Korea, to allow 

abortion on demand after 20 weeks of pregnancy. 

The Dobbs decision unshackled States from this judicial power 

grab in Roe, that was based on falsehoods about history and 
9 

science. We can apply scientific knowledge that we’ve gained since 

that infamous decision. Medical advancements in the past 50 years 

have made it crystal clear that States have a compelling interest 

in protecting unborn children at every stage of development. With 

the help of ultrasounds, we’ve learned that babies in the first 12 

weeks develop heartbeats and brainwaves. They move around and 

kick. They can hiccup, suck their thumbs, even taste what their 

mom eats. 

It’s entirely reasonable and right for Americans to protect these 

tiny humans, and the American citizens are prepared to do so. In 

fact, reports that Americans supported Roe are extremely misleading. Roe allowed for abortion up to the moment of birth, but 

nearly 90 percent of Americans oppose abortion in the third trimester, let alone until birth. 

Now, for the women who find themselves overwhelmed by the 

prospect of motherhood, there is hope, and it doesn’t involve destroying the baby for a fee. We need to be pointing pregnant moms 

toward real help. Thousands of pregnancy resource centers around 

the Nation stand ready to support women at no cost, with tangible 

services, both during and after a mother’s pregnancy. Many States 

are also pouring resources into creative programs to ensure that 

every pregnant mom can access the critical support she needs. 

Churches, adoption agencies, and other civic organizations are redoubling their efforts. 

Dobbs marks a new day for our country, the opportunity to build 

a better society than the one the Court forced upon us in 1973. A 

society that not only affirms that life is a human right, but that 

embraces motherhood by providing opportunities for women to 

thrive as moms. We as a Nation can no longer use Roe as an excuse to treat pregnancy as a woman’s problem that she alone must 

solve. It’s time to implement innovative support systems and empower women to pursue full and flourishing lives for their families 

and themselves. The post-Roe legal landscape is changing as we 

speak, and I am so grateful that we are entering a new era where 

the American people have the opportunity to lead the world in upholding the dignity of women, of their children, and of human life. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harle appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you. Professor Bridges. 

STATEMENT OF KHIARA M. BRIDGES, 

PROFESSOR OF LAW, UC BERKELEY SCHOOL 

OF LAW, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 

Professor BRIDGES. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is 

Khiara Bridges, and I am a Professor of Law at the University of 

California Berkeley School of Law. I am here today to explain how 

the U.S. Supreme Court’s radical decision in Dobbs v. Jackson 

Women’s Health Organization to take away constitutional protection for reproductive freedom harms people of color. 

In Dobbs, the Court upheld Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 

15 weeks of pregnancy, and in the process, overturned Roe v. Wade. 
10 

Dobbs declares that Roe erred when it interpreted the Fourteenth 

Amendment’s Due Process Clause to protect a right to terminate a 

pre-viability pregnancy insofar as that clause only protects rights 

that are, quote, ‘‘deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’’, end quote. 

For the Dobbs majority, the country’s laws in 1868, the year that 

the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, determine whether abortion rights can be so characterized. After canvassing abortion regulations in 1868, the majority concludes that abortion rights are not 

part of the Nation’s history and tradition. The painfully obvious 

point to make is that people with the capacity for pregnancy were 

not part of the body politic during the period of the Nation’s history 

that the majority believes is decisive of the constitutional inquiry. 

Women cannot vote in the country for another half a century after 

1868. Because women could not participate in the democratic process, one could reasonably assume that their interests were not reflected in any of the Nation’s laws, including the criminal laws that 

the Dobbs majority reads as foreclosing a constitutional right to 

terminate a pregnancy. Thus, the majority’s decision to privilege 

the year 1868 and to attempt to define the meaning of the Constitution by looking at the Nation’s practices during that time is a 

decision to privilege an era characterized by the formal exclusion 

of people with a capacity for pregnancy. 

People of color specifies—people of color, specifically Black people, will feel the impact of the Court’s decision in Dobbs, more than 

any other racial group. Black people’s abortion rate is three to four 

times white people’s abortion rate. This is a direct result of Black 

people’s higher rate of unintended pregnancy, which in turn, is due 

to higher rates of poverty among Black people. 

A frequently cited reason that individuals give for terminating an 

unintended pregnancy is that they cannot afford to have a child at 

that time. Thus, the unequal burden of poverty that Black people 

bear, renders them more likely to face an unintended pregnancy in 

the first instance, and in the second instance, to lack the funds 

thought necessary to carry the pregnancy to term and raise the 

child. As such, when States are permitted to use the criminal or 

civil law to make abortion inaccessible, States render unavailable 

a service upon which Black people desperately rely. 

Further, the number of people of jails and prisons has grown tremendously since 1973. The incarcerated population has quadrupled 

in the last 40 years, with close to 2 million people confined in jails 

and prisons today. This is to say that the country currently is much 

more willing than it was in the generations that proceeded Roe to 

turn to jails and prisons to address its social problems, both real 

or imagined. Moreover, there now exists precedent for punishing 

people for poor pregnancy outcomes, a precedent that simply did 

not exist during the era of criminal abortion laws that proceeded 

Roe. 

In the 1980’s, during the crack/cocaine scare, States began to use 

creative interpretations of the criminal law to prosecute Black people who used a drug during their pregnancies. Arrests and prosecutions for substance use during pregnancy continue to the present. 

Further, criminal punishment of pregnant people who have suffered poor birth outcomes occur outside of the context of substance 
11 

use. For example, prosecutors brought charges against a depressed 

pregnant woman who attempted suicide and suffered a miscarriage 

as a result. I could go on and on. Although a number of abortion 

rights opponents currently claim to consider the pregnant person 

who has an abortion to be a victim, I am skeptical about the sincerity or endurance of this belief in light of our current practice of 

punishing pregnant people for their pregnancy outcomes. 

Importantly, even if Black people attempted to self-manage abortion despite the threat of criminal punishment as frequently as 

people of other races, we should fully expect that Black people will 

be more frequently and more harshly punished for breaking the 

law. We should have this expectation because as a general matter, 

Black people are more likely than their non-Black counterparts to 

be arrested, prosecuted, indicted, and convicted for the same conduct. And they serve longer sentences than their non-Black counterparts, even when controlling for relevant factors. 

In conclusion, I cannot overstate the level of harm and chaos that 

the Dobbs decision has already caused people seeking abortion care 

providers and practical support organizations. The crisis and access 

to abortion care in the United States highlights the need for a bold, 

holistic, and intersectional policy response, that puts within its 

range of vision everything from the need for comprehensive, paid 

family and medical leave, to laws that urgently protect the right 

to both. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Professor Bridges appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Professor. Ms. Matzke, did I pronounce your name correctly? 

Ms. MATZKE. Yes. 

Chair DURBIN. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HEIDI MATZKE, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, ALTERNATIVES PREGNANCY 

CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATZKE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grassley, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you so much for the privilege 

and honor of being here today. My name is Heidi Matzke, and I 

am the executive director of Alternatives Pregnancy Center in Sacramento, California. 

I came into this role by a roundabout road, that began in a very 

emotional place. A number of years ago, on the day my sister and 

I were supposed to leave for college, she showed up at the door and 

collapsed on the ground. I said, ‘‘What’s wrong?’’ as I looked into 

her eyes. She looked up at me and she said, ‘‘I’m pregnant.’’ I still 

remember the fear in her eyes. I see that fear almost every single 

day in the eyes of women who come into our center. They need 

help, they need someone to talk to, and they need hope. I know because my sister needed all of those things. Our family needed all 

of those things, and we found them in a local pregnancy care center, and years later, because I wanted to give that same help, and 

hope, and support to others, I became the Director at Alternatives. 

As an organization of mostly women serving women, the staff of 

our clinic offers our patients compassionate, holistic care, ministering in whatever gentle ways we can to their physical, emotional, 
12 

and even spiritual needs. So, it grieves me that since the Supreme 

Court announces Dobbs decision, a great deal of misinformation 

has been spread about who we are, and what we do. 

Let me share with you some of the facts. Our clinic is one of 

nearly 3,000 pregnancy care centers serving women across America. Each year, hundreds of thousands come to our clinics, looking 

for free medical care, emotional support, and practical resources 

that will enable them to carry their pregnancies to term. Our clinic 

alone, in Sacramento, provides over $1 million of free medical services each year to women who come to us. We charge them nothing. 

That means we never financially benefit from any choice a woman 

makes. We make no profit of any kind off the women who turn to 

us for help. We offer pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, prenatal care up 

to 24 weeks, well-woman visits, we test and treat for sexually 

transmitted diseases. We offer abortion pill reversal services, abortion recovery counseling, and parenting classes. And if finances are 

a problem, we have diapers, wipes, baby formula, baby food, baby 

clothing, baby supplies. And if a woman needs a hotel room, we 

provide that as well. We pay for all of that. It doesn’t matter who 

she is, where she comes from, or what her past is. 

At our center, all medical services are provided by a staff of licensed medical professionals, including doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, and medical assistants. They are deeply compassionate 

people because most of them have experienced abortion for themselves. Our OB/GYN doctor was an abortionist. 

When a woman comes in, so afraid of what an unplanned pregnancy will mean for her life, her ambitions, her relationships, we 

do not urge her, in that moment, to make any decision. We listen, 

we try to hear her heart, we offer professional services and emotional support. Whether she chooses parenting, adoption, or abortion, we will continue to be there for her, for years if necessary. 

Many women choose abortion because they lack the resources and 

support they need to confidently choose to parent. Over the last 5 

years, American pregnancy care centers have served nearly 2 million women who were faced with an unplanned pregnancy and 

wanted an alternative to abortion. 

Yet, pregnancy care centers from coast to coast are being targeted for violent assaults, of vandalism, and hateful attacks online, 

and in the media. Just last week, as the exhibit shows, a man approached our care center with an armed machete. We have been 

forced to hire 24-hour onsite security. We have had to reinforce 

doors and bulletproof our walls. We have had to paint our building 

with anti-graffiti coating. We’ve added cameras, armed our staff 

with pepper spray, and stopped running our mobile clinic because 

of threats of violence. We have been forced to expend valuable resources, resources for women of up to $150,000, just to protect ourself. Why? Because we offer free care to women. 

What we do, though, is worth the risk. Every community needs 

a place for women facing unplanned pregnancies who are seeking 

dependable medical resources in a safe, caring environment during 

one of the most difficult times of their lives. ‘‘You are pregnant,’’ 

three of the most powerful words a woman will hear in her life. For 

some, the words bring incredible joy, and for others, incredible fear. 

Both deserve support. I thank you for the privilege of sharing with 
13 

you a brief glimpse of hope, service, and compassion our pregnancy 

centers, and so many others across this great country provide to 

women every single day. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Matzke appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Ms. Matzke. Dr. McNicholas. 

STATEMENT OF DR. COLLEEN P. McNICHOLAS, 

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, PLANNED PARENTHOOD 

OF THE ST. LOUIS REGION AND SOUTHWEST 

MISSOURI, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. Thank you, Chair Durbin. My name is Dr. Colleen McNicholas, and I use she/her pronouns. I’m a board-certified 

OB/GYN, trained to provide the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion care. I practice in Missouri 

and Illinois, two States where people are living such vastly different realities, that it should be considered by each one of you to 

be un-American. On June 24th, when the Supreme Court overruled 

Roe v. Wade, it effectively created two nations. One, where those 

whose reproductive freedom belongs to themselves, and another, 

whose reproductive freedom belongs to a small group of politicians 

who have effectively appointed themselves as decision-makers over 

our bodies, our lives, and our futures. 

Today, I’m here to speak for patients, the patients I serve every 

day, people from across the Midwest and South, who navigate a ridiculous obstacle course just to access basic care. While it may take 

us years to understand how the Supreme Court decision in the 

Dobbs v. Jackson case will have impacted our public health outcomes, we already know, just 18 days into this post-Roe reality, 

how it’s disastrously complicating people’s lives and putting doctors 

in impossible situations. 

Since ceasing abortion care at our health center in St. Louis, 

which was the last remaining abortion clinic in Missouri, our 

health center in Illinois just across the Mississippi River has cared 

for patients who have traveled as far as a thousand miles each 

way. Each one of those patients has told me they had no choice but 

to travel hours and hours for care. Almost overnight, our Illinois 

clinic has seen appointments triple, and that’s already on top of a 

double booked scheduled we were sustaining in the wake of Texas 

and Oklahoma’s abortion bans. 

As we’ve long said, overturning Roe will not stop the need for 

abortion. The Supreme Court’s decision has already pushed people, 

the people each one of you represents, into extreme and sometimes 

dangerous circumstances, in order to access one of the safest and 

most common health care procedures. 

In Missouri, and several other States, abortion is banned except 

in a medical emergency. In other words, in order for doctors to 

avoid prison time, instead of treating a patient before their health 

condition becomes life threatening, doctors must now contemplate 

how sick is sick enough before providing lifesaving abortion care. 

People will suffer unnecessary harm as doctors wait for permission 

from hospital lawyers to tell them that they can proceed. In some 

circumstances, the abortion care will come too late. 
14 

Not only is this agenda unpopular, it is deeply anti-life. We already know that abortion care is inextricably linked to maternal 

health outcomes. In Missouri, Black maternal mortality is four 

times higher than that for white women. Forcing people to continue 

pregnancies they do not want or cannot bear will cost lives. Forcing 

people into parenting without passing policies that address 

childcare costs, paid family leave, or a formula shortage will cost 

lives. The anti-abortion agenda is anti-life and hypocrisy at its 

worst. 

I have a plea for our allies, too, those of you who have long stood 

with us and committed to protecting reproductive freedom. Listen 

to those of us who have been warning about this moment for years. 

Work with critical access States to ensure that abortion remains 

accessible. Use every bit of your power to do something. 

On June 24th, 1 hour before the Supreme Court dismantled abortion rights, I was sitting next to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, 

along with partners and allies in Missouri, including the Congresswoman from the First District, Representative Cori Bush. In that 

meeting, we asked the Biden administration to declare a public 

health emergency, to support the patients who will have to flee 

their home States for abortion care, as 36 million people of reproductive age now, or soon, will live in a State where abortion is 

banned. 

Senators, I come before you tired, frustrated, and angry. Those 

of us on the front lines, the abortion activists, that President 

Biden’s team just this weekend referred to as out of step, we are 

the ones who are holding back this public health crisis that’s about 

to sweep the country. I speak on behalf of my colleagues, abortion 

providers and advocates, we deserve better. We need action, and 

we need it now. We’re out of time. Thank you for inviting me to 

share about this moment in history, which I am certain will be a 

stain as we move forward. Abortion is normal. It is an act of love, 

and it is fundamentally health care. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. McNicholas appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Dr. McNicholas. We’ll now go into 5- 

minute rounds for the Members to ask questions, and I’ll begin. Dr. 

McNicholas, you’ve already addressed this issue, but I want to return to it, because I think it is critically important. There are some 

who say that those who support the abortion procedures are alarmists and exaggerating the danger that women face because of the 

Dobbs decision. I think you’ve alluded to this, and I want to make 

it part of the record. The United States already has the highest 

maternal mortality rates of comparable nations. In other words, 

more women die in childbirth in this country than most other countries. We are one of only 13 countries where the maternal mortality 

rate is worse today than it was 25 years ago. Every year, 900 

women nationwide die as a result of pregnancy related complications. Seventy thousand suffer near fatal outcomes. Women of color 

are three times more likely to die as a result of pregnancy than 

white women. Yet, it could get much worse. 

A recent study estimated that a nationwide ban on abortion 

would increase maternal mortality in the United States by 20 percent. Among Black women, the estimate is in the increase of 33 
15 

percent. By ending the Constitutional right to abortion, the Supreme Court has ensured that maternal mortality in the United 

States will increase. In States, incidentally, with the most restrictive abortion laws already, there’s a 7-percent higher maternal 

mortality rate than States with fewer restrictions. 

Tell me the practical side of this, the cases that you’ve run into 

as a practicing physician, as a doctor, where you’ve had to make 

this decision, life or death decision when it comes to the mother. 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. Thank you, Senator Durbin. I first want to acknowledge the fact that you’re right. This country has a disappointing and quite embarrassing maternal mortality rate already, and we are on the cusp of seeing that rate increase. The six 

States with the highest maternal mortality rate are the six States 

that immediately moved to ban abortion, and that is not a coincidence. 

In addition to the public health implications that we won’t know 

for years, impacts on long-term maternal mortality rate, we are already seeing mass chaos among OB/GYNs, emergency room physicians, and quite frankly, pharmacists. We’re talking about people 

being denied or delayed care for pregnancy and non-pregnancy related conditions. Lupus, arthritis, cancer—medications that we use 

frequently to control those conditions are being denied to patients 

because they might also contribute to miscarriage or could be used 

for abortion in other indications. 

OB/GYNs who are sitting on patients in emergency rooms while 

they bleed, while their vital signs become unstable, while they’re 

waiting for hospital lawyers to decide is this patient sick enough. 

When the consequence of violating a law is criminal, doctors are 

put in impossible positions where they know the right care, they 

know what to do to help somebody, but yet they have to wait, making folks sustain totally preventable harm. It is quite embarrassing. It should be shameful. 

Chair DURBIN. Professor Bridges, you made a reference in your 

testimony to 1868, and you used as an example when Justice Alito 

referred to the historical precedence and went back to 1868, but at 

that moment in American history, women were not legally entitled 

to vote. I also note that in that moment women could not own property or enter into a contract in the United States of America. In 

1868, not a single woman practiced law in the United States, and 

that was the historic basis that Justice Alito wanted to use for the 

Dobbs decision. Would you comment again on that particular aspect of this, when we talk about historic precedent? 

Professor BRIDGES. Absolutely, thank you for the question. It’s a 

complete choice to elevate the year 1868 as the moment of Constitutional significance, in terms of constitutional interpretation. 

Again, it was a period of time in which women were simply not 

part of the body politic. It wasn’t until social movements that occurred later in this country’s history, in the 1970’s, that we started 

to see movements for women’s equality, and women could actually 

become something that we can call equal citizens. 

I also wanted to—I guess just give me time to just note the selectivity of Justice Alito’s historical inquiry. He chooses to elevate 

1868 in the context of abortion rights, because it will lead to the 

result that he likes. In other cases, in other contexts, he doesn’t en-
16 

gage in a historical inquiry at all. In his affirmative action jurisprudence, 1868 is also the relevant time that we should look for 

when interpreting the Equal Protection Clause. We should be interrogating what the Framers thought when they ratified the Equal 

Protection Clause in terms of did they think that there ought to be 

race conscious efforts to make newly—newly freed, formally 

enslaved people of color members of the body politic. If he engages 

into historical inquiry, he will have to lead to a conclusion that affirmative action is constitutional. He doesn’t engage in that historical inquiry because it will not lead to results that he likes. 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you. Lieutenant Governor Stratton, I’m a 

little over my time, but I want to give you a chance to respond to 

efforts that are underway on the maternal mortality issue, and protection of women. I have to give you fair warning that your statement that Illinois is a unique Midwestern State on the subject is 

going to be challenged by a Senator from Minnesota. Lieutenant 

Governor. 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. Thank you for that question and just the 

ability to add what the witnesses have already stated. In addition 

to that, I would point out that this will not only just have a disproportionate impact on Black women. When we often talk about 

the issue of maternal mortality, then we raise the issue of how it 

disproportionately impacts Black women. But the issue of restricting abortion access, the abortion bans, and other restrictions also 

will have a disproportionate impact on those women who are from 

lower income communities, on immigrant women, on young women, 

on women from rural communities, on our LGBTQ+ community. 

There are so many wide-ranging ramifications, and the bottom line 

is that everyone should be able to decide for themselves what is 

best for their own health care, in conjunction with their physician. 

This is not something that should be decided with a political agenda. It is not something that should be a decision made by politicians. These are decisions that are very personal and should be 

made, and when they have health implications, as we’re talking 

about maternal mortality, then this is an example of why it is not 

a politician’s determination. It should be that individual’s decision 

with their health care professional. 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor. Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Ms. Matzke, I’m going to repeat some statistics you gave. According to Charlotte Lozier Institute, pro-life pregnancy centers performed more than 86,000 free ultrasounds, 

731,003 pregnancy tests last year, 291,000 clients attended parenting and prenatal education classes, and 2,500 locations offer 

material assistance that babies need when the family can’t support 

it. Can you tell us how you help pregnant women, and even more 

importantly, would there be a disparate impact on these communities if your centers weren’t available? 

Ms. MATZKE. Yes, Senator Grassley. Thank you for the question. 

We give women free medical care, free parenting classes, and baby 

supplies, free medical and emotional support after an abortion. 

Along with that, pregnancy care centers throughout the entire 

country give $266 million a year of free medical care and resources 

to the community nationwide. It is important to know that preg-
17 

nancy centers often support women, even after they’ve had an abortion. As a matter of fact, we had a 19-year-old young woman come 

into our clinic, who did not want an abortion. She was forced to 

take the abortion pill by her parents. She testified to the fact that 

when she took the abortion pill, she was isolated in a bathroom, 

all by herself. There was no support. There was no doctor there. 

There was no nurse there. There was no pain medication other 

than ibuprofen. She testifies to physically going into labor on the 

floor, on the toilet, and in her bathroom. At one point she said she 

looked down, and what they told her was a clump of cells, was a 

fully formed baby laying on the floor. Devastated, she claims she 

picked that baby up, and carried it around, put it in a plastic bag, 

and several weeks later, took it to a memorial and buried it. This 

is not health care. A woman, alone, by herself, in a bathroom, experiencing tremendous pain, and seeing the effects of it. A young 

woman who has an abortion at an abortion clinic never has to drive 

by that abortion clinic ever again. A young woman who goes into 

labor on the floor in her bathroom, and physically sees everything 

that comes out of her, and experiences the pain in the midst of that 

moment, has to wake up every single morning and relive that experience. Again, this is not health care. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Ms. Harle, whether it’s an unelected court, or 

the thinnest possible margins in Congress, we need to respect our 

institutions and their limitations. The Supreme Court shouldn’t be 

taking power away from legislatures to make national policy from 

the bench, neither should the filibuster be destroyed to enact a bill 

that allows abortion until birth, a policy 8 in 10 Americans reject. 

To you, what are the constitutional and practical problems with 

the various proposals that we’ve seen and to enshrine abortion at 

the Federal level? 

Ms. HARLE. There are a couple of problems. As a constitutional 

matter, Congress does not have the authority in its Constitutional 

powers to impose a national abortion regime upon the States. You 

can’t find that in the Commerce Clause. You can’t find that anywhere in Congress’ powers. That would be a gross overreach and 

would trample on principles of federalism. 

As a policy matter, it’s also problematic. The example that I’m 

aware of, the current so-called Women’s Health Protection Act, 

which has a nice name, but if you read it, is actually an abortion 

on demand through all 9 months of pregnancy bill. That as a policy 

is—it’s horrific. It’s completely out of step with what the American 

people want. Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to abortion on 

demand up to the moment of birth, and the Women’s Health Protection Act would actually allow a baby to be dismembered, torn 

apart limb from limb, just before entering the birth canal, for any 

reason whatsoever or no reason at all. 

It would also overturn hundreds of State laws that are modest 

in common sense and that protect life. As a constitutional matter, 

I don’t think a congressional attempt to mandate abortion would be 

upheld in court, and as a policy matter, it is a horrific idea, and 

I think we should be embarrassed, that the United States is even 

considering something like that. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Senator Feinstein. 
18 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I was just thinking 

back 50 years ago, when abortion was illegal, and I was sitting on 

the California Women’s Board of Terms and Parole, setting sentences for women who committed abortion. I remember how terrible it was. Before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade nearly 

50 years ago, abortions were risky. They were difficult to obtain. 

Women would travel to Mexico to seek an abortion from an unauthorized provider, or they would attempt to self-induce an abortion, 

using dangerous and potentially life-threatening methods. 

We know from those times, and I know from those times, that 

banning abortion care will not stop people from seeking abortions. 

It will only make abortion more deadly. Overturning Roe does nothing more than endanger the lives of women. I’m really deeply concerned that State efforts to ban and criminalize abortion will once 

again emerge and will harm the ability of women to seek vital, 

medical care. 

Dr. McNicholas, from your experience as a provider, what impact 

have you seen from these State abortion bans, on women who are 

seeking reproductive health care? And Professor Bridges, what can 

Congress do to help protect people seeking an abortion? 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. Thank you so much for the question, Senator 

Feinstein. I will start by saying and acknowledging and agreeing 

that the legalization of abortion has never been the driver of its necessity. That was true before Roe and that will be true now postDobbs. 

Pre-decision, you know, there were States like Missouri, who had 

made it so difficult that the Roe decision was inadequate and 

pushed abortion out of access for many already. The reality is right 

now in this moment, today, there are thousands, tens of thousands 

of people, who are navigating which bill can go unpaid, how to find 

somebody to watch their kids, making sure their transportation can 

get them thousands of miles to the next clinic, all in search of basic 

health care. 

What we know is that abortion bans, and restrictions alike, disproportionately affect people who live in marginalized identities 

and are worse for people who exist in the intersections of oppression. We will see more people be harmed by these decisions, both 

as pregnancy outcomes, as well as people who are being denied and 

delayed care outside of the abortion realm. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. As of this past weekend, 21 States either 

have an abortion ban in effect, are expected to implement a ban 

soon, or have severely restricted abortion access in the State. These 

bans are forcing women to leave their home States in order to seek 

safe and legal reproductive health care. Some States with abortion 

bans in place have begun discussing the potential next step of banning people from traveling to seek abortion care outside of their 

home State. My home State, California, recently passed legislation 

that would help protect abortion providers and individuals from 

other States who seek abortion care in California. 

Professor Bridges, if some States take this next step of banning 

travel to seek abortions, what legal protection should States hoping 

to protect abortion access put in place to prevent harm to patients 

visiting their States for care? 
19 

Professor BRIDGES. Thank you for the question, Senator. We have 

a clearly established constitutional right to travel in Saenz v. Roe 

in 1999. The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as protecting a right to travel, but that does not mean that that right is 

secure. We’ve seen in Dobbs that 50 years of precedent can be overturned, just simply based on the membership of the Court. 

I want to back up just a little bit and respond to your question 

about what can Congress do in response to the reversal of Roe. Congress can and should repeal the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde 

Amendment prevents Federal funds from being used on abortion 

care. It has made it impossible for low-income people to rely on 

their health insurance, Medicaid, to cover the cost of abortion care. 

It also makes it impossible for people who rely on Indian Health 

Services, Native people, to turn to the clinics and the facilities that 

fulfill the Federal Government’s obligation to Native people, to provide health care. 

Also, I just want to note that Congress can and should pass Federal legislation that creates a statutory right to an abortion. The 

Women’s Health Protection Act is a nice first step. There is no 

question that Congress has the authority to pass the WHPA. This 

is because health care—they have the power under the Commerce 

Clause. Health care is an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. The Court in NFIB v. Sebelius, which upheld the 

Affordable Care Act, did not cast doubt on Congress’ ability to regulate health care, because it is an activity that substantially affects 

interstate commerce. Congress certainly has the power to pass the 

WHPA and other efforts. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. It would be helpful, 

any statement with particulars in it that you care to put into writing and submit to the Committee. I would certainly appreciate, 

so—— 

Professor BRIDGES. Will do. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Senator Cotton. 

Senator COTTON. Over the last few months, we’ve seen a marked 

increase in violence and intimidation by pro-abortion groups. Leftwing mobs have gathered outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices to try to intimidate them and affect their decision in the 

Dobbs case, a blatant violation of Federal law. Yet, the weak and 

hopelessly partisan Attorney General Merrick Garland refused to 

enforce that Federal law. It’s gotten so bad that the Supreme Court 

Marshal has had to go to the Governors of Virginia and Maryland 

and plead with them to protect our Supreme Court Justices at 

their homes. In one case, a Democratic hit man even traveled from 

California to try to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh at his home. 

It’s not just Supreme Court Justices targeted. Pro-abortion 

groups, including one calling itself Jane’s Revenge, has claimed 

credit for firebombing a pro-life organization in Madison, Wisconsin, and numerous other firebombing attacks and acts of vandalism against pro-life groups in more than a dozen States. The 

same group even attacked and vandalized the campaign office of a 

Republican Congressman. This weekend, three separate churches 

in Maryland were all attacked, all three vandalized and desecrated, 
20 

and two were set on fire. Those attacks are currently under investigation but are also believed to be related to pro-abortion causes 

and groups. 

I’d like to ask each of you, starting with Lieutenant Governor, do 

you condemn the violent attacks, fire bombings, and vandalism by 

groups like Jane’s Revenge? 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. Thank you, Senator. Let me just say I will 

emphasize that violence against anyone is wrong, and no one 

should experience threats to their safety or their well-being. But I 

would also urge everyone to bring the same energy to the attacks 

that are taking place against abortion providers and clinics. All 

across the board, violence is unacceptable, and we know that we 

are seeing violent acts as well as threats and attacks also on abortion providers and clinics. That also needs to be addressed with 

that same energy. We know that arson, bombings, assaults, which 

have increased exponentially. Stalkings have gone up 600 percent 

since 2020, against those that are abortion providers. So, no, I condemn any acts of violence and absolutely do not believe anybody 

should be—experience threats to their well-being and safety. But 

that should apply equally across the board, and everyone should be 

working just as hard to make sure that abortion providers and clinics also get that same protection. 

Senator COTTON. Thank you. Ms. Harle. 

Ms. HARLE. I do condemn all violence, and I would just note that 

abortion is an act of violence against the most innocent and vulnerable human beings. 

Senator COTTON. Thank you. Professor. 

Professor BRIDGES. I condemn violence, and I would like to note 

that forced birth is an act of violence as well. I have some additional statistics to share. There has been a 450 percent increase in 

blockades at clinics that provide abortion services, and 163 percent 

increase in the planting of hoax devices in suspicious packages at 

clinics that provide abortion care. One hundred twenty-nine percent increase in invasions at clinics that provide abortion care, and 

128 percent increase in assault and battery. Yes, we should keep 

that same energy across the board and protect everyone who’s providing abortion care. 

Senator COTTON. Ms. Matzke. 

Ms. MATZKE. Yes, I also condemn that violence. Violence should 

never be carried out on anyone at any time, and pregnancy centers 

here recently, since the overturning, the violence has been overwhelming that we have sustained. And the amount of money we 

have had to spend to protect ourselves just so we can offer free 

services to women is unbelievable. 

Senator COTTON. Doctor. 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. Thank you so much. I appreciate the outrage 

for the violence. In fact, my own family would appreciate some outrage in protection of ourselves. Dr. Lynn Weller, murdered in 1977, 

would have appreciated some outrage. Dr. David Gunn, murdered 

in 1993; Dr. John Britton, in 1994; James Barret, a volunteer, murdered in 1994; Shannon Lowney, murdered at the age of 25, in 

1994; Leanne Nichols, 38, murdered in 1994. Dr. Barnett Slepian, 

1998, murdered in Buffalo, New York, after returning home from 

his synagogue and just hours after his wife forwarded the threat 
21 

to the police. Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer at a clinic, 

murdered by who everyone now knows as Eric Rudolph, in 1998. 

Of course, Dr. George Tiller, in 2009, murdered in his own church, 

would have appreciated your outrage as well. 

Senator COTTON. I’m sorry. I didn’t hear an answer to my question. Do you condemn the violence committed by groups like Jane’s 

Revenge? 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. Echoing all of my fellow panelists here, I absolutely condemn violence against everyone, including abortion providers. 

Senator COTTON. Thank you. 

Chair DURBIN. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin. By 

the way, thank you for that answer. That was—going through the 

names, I think, really reiterates to many people up here that we 

condemn violence, but there have been a lot of people who have lost 

their lives, simply by trying to guarantee women what were once 

their guaranteed rights under the Constitution and now is in our 

hands. 

For nearly 50 years, Roe v. Wade protected a woman’s right to 

make her own health care decisions, ensuring that women, their 

families, and their doctors were in charge of the most personal 

choices in their life, not politicians. This ruling means that not only 

will women receive different treatment under the law than men, 

but there will be, as we’ve discussed today, a patchwork of laws 

across the country. 

Look at what we’re seeing right now. Louisiana passed a law 

that subjects abortion providers to criminal penalties. In Missouri, 

a bill was recently introduced that would allow private citizens to 

sue people, who help women leave the State to get abortion care. 

Mississippi’s Governor refused to rule out banning contraception. 

As Senator Durbin noted, our State, like Illinois, is also an island 

in the heartland, but a good place. I’m very proud that our State 

has stood up in Minnesota for reproductive rights of women. 

After the Dobbs decision, I met with a group of health care workers from the Planned Parenthood Clinic in Moorhead, Minnesota, 

and I talked to the head of the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, 

North Dakota. She has resorted to a GoFundMe page in order to 

make sure that she can keep providing services in the upper Midwest, and in fact, is moving her clinic to Minnesota. All of the proprietors that I’ve talked to have been resolute in their desire to 

continue to serve the health care needs of women. 

I would start with you, Professor Bridges, because Minnesota is 

surrounded by States with abortion restrictions, providers expect to 

see 10 to 25 percent more people coming to our State. Can you talk 

about the strain that a sudden increase in women seeking care has 

on both patients and providers? 

Professor BRIDGES. Absolutely, I can speak on that, but I also 

will invite the Lieutenant Governor Stratton to weigh in, as well. 

We saw that after Texas passed S.B. 8, effectively ending abortion 

in the State, after 6 weeks of pregnancy, before most people know 

that they are pregnant, there was an incredible influx from patients in Texas in clinics in the surrounding States, Oklahoma, and 

Kansas. 
22 

Some clinics reported a thousand percent increase in patients 

from Texas after S.B. 8 went into effect. Some clinics in Kansas 

provided information that 50 percent of their clients were now from 

Texas. That makes it difficult, of course, for people from Texas to 

access abortion care because now they have to travel hundreds of 

miles for abortion care. It also makes it difficult for the residents 

of Oklahoma and Kansas to access the care in their—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. 

Professor BRIDGES [continuing]. State, because the supply simply 

cannot meet the demand. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Given some of the things I mentioned, are 

you concerned that under the Court’s sweeping decision there are 

no limit on what States can do to make it nearly impossible for 

women to seek care? 

Professor BRIDGES. There are limits, right? I mentioned Saenz v. 

Roe, which was decided in 1999, in which the Supreme Court held 

that there was a Constitutional right to travel. However, we have 

seen that the Supreme Court cares very little for precedent. The 

Supreme Court doesn’t feel bound by precedent, and so if that 

precedent leads to result that it doesn’t like, we can expect it to be 

reversed, just as we saw Roe reversed simply because of the membership of the Court. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay, one last question. I’m concerned of 

the view that private health data could put providers and people 

seeking abortions at risk. One report showed that it only cost about 

$160 to buy a week’s worth of location data on people who visited 

Planned Parenthood. That’s why Senator Baldwin and I have 

partnered together to urge the FTC to regulate data brokers who 

are selling data about people who are seeking abortions. Yesterday, 

the FTC issued a statement committing to fully enforcing the law 

against illegal use of highly sensitive data. In the wake of the 

Dobbs decision, do you agree that it is important to protect data 

privacy, particularly in States that have outlawed abortion? 

Professor BRIDGES. It is essential that we protect data privacy. 

Whenever we’re online, we leave a digital footprint. That footprint 

can now be used as incriminating evidence, if prosecutors are interested in pressing criminal charges against people seeking basic 

health care. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay, very, very good. Thank you. Just one 

last thing, Lieutenant Governor, if you wanted to add anything on 

the front of the States like Illinois and Minnesota and the impact 

on these States. 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. I want to begin, Senator, by acknowledging 

the great leadership in the State of Minnesota, and I will also just 

add to your question regarding the protection of data and privacy 

issues. We know that the potential criminalization of patients coming to our State is certainly of top of mind in Illinois, but it’s not 

just the patients. It’s also the abortion care providers that also 

could potentially risk that same sort of criminalization. We are 

working with our States, leaders are gathering to talk about how 

we can continue to expand and further enshrine reproductive rights 

into State law. Because, again, everyone should be able to feel safe 

and be able to have access to health care between them and their 

physician. 
23 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good, and our Governor, Tim Walz, 

and Peggy Flanagan, our Lieutenant Governor, I know have great 

respect, as I do, for you and Governor Pritzker. Thank you very 

much. 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. Thank you. 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Senator Lee? I’m 

sorry, maybe Senator Cornyn was first. You two want to work it 

out. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s important we focus 

on what we’re actually discussing today. We aren’t talking about 

procedures that culminate in and have as their sole intended purpose the termination of a baby’s life. These are babies. It’s also important that we recognize, in response to those who have said that 

the Dobbs decision was somehow undemocratic, nothing could be 

further from the truth. In fact, the Dobbs decision was a victory for 

Republican democracy. There really is no way to argue otherwise 

with any credibility. 

What the Court did in Dobbs was to return this question, this 

question of whether, or in what circumstances, abortion will be allowed, returning that back to the people, and to their elected lawmakers. This is a decision that is not taken off the table by the 

Constitution, and because it’s not taken off the table by the Constitution, it belongs to the people, who can exercise that decision 

through their elected lawmakers. The American people will now be 

able to say whether, and in what circumstances, and in what 

places abortion will be regulated. This is how Republican democracy in America works. This is how our Republic was always intended and established to function. 

Justice Alito, my former boss, in his well-written majority opinion, explained this point well. He said, quote, ‘‘Our decision returns 

the issue of abortion to those legislative bodies, and it allows 

women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, 

voting, and running for office’’, close quote. That’s it, page 65 of the 

Dobbs majority opinion. 

Seems to me that the abortion industry, and the left, and those 

incumbent politicians whose campaigns are funded by the abortion 

industry have gone to great links to scare the American people, 

convincing them that Dobbs does something that it doesn’t do. It 

saddens me that they’re doing all of this for the cause of saying 

that it’s okay, and, in fact, it’s protected by the Constitution, to exterminate, to extinguish, an unborn human life. Makes me wonder 

whether those making these scurrilous arguments are simply 

afraid of American Republican democracy, simply afraid of the 

American people, simply afraid that when able to make this decision on their own, freed from the judicial oligarchy that has 

reigned over this era, this area of the law for the last 49 years, that 

they won’t make the same decision, that the radical left would 

make. It seems to me to be the most plausible explanation for why 

they are so upset, and why they’re calling it undemocratic. Nothing 

could be further from the truth. 

It’s also important to note that this reign falls disproportionately 

on some communities. It falls disproportionately on some races 
24 

more than others. Black babies are at greater risk of being aborted 

than white babies. A New York City Health Department report, 

one that was released just about 4 years ago, found that between 

2012 and 2016, when this study was conducted, that Black mothers 

aborted 136,426 babies, while giving birth to only 118,127 babies. 

That’s right. Thousands, thousands of more Black babies were 

aborted than born in New York City during that relevant time period. 

It shouldn’t come as a surprise as you consider that Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a big fan of eugenics, and 

her plans were not what anyone would want to defend today, on 

that front. She’s someone who wanted to, quote, unquote, ‘‘assist 

the race toward the elimination of the unfit.’’ These are not laudable goals. 

Ms. Harle, these reports on the Black women, the rate at which 

Black women in New York City are getting abortions, they’re 

heartbreaking. They’re breathtaking. I hope to see States enacting 

stronger protections for life, including, among other things, laws 

prohibiting abortions based on the race, sex, or disability of the 

baby. I hope these laws would protect all babies, including Black 

babies. In your view, Ms. Harle, is race, sex, or disability a valid 

reason for aborting an unborn baby? 

Ms. HARLE. Absolutely not. No one should be discriminated 

against based on their race, or their sex, or their genetic makeup. 

Certainly, no one should be killed because of any of those factors. 

These are the sorts of laws that States have been attempting to 

pass to protect the most vulnerable citizens from fatal, lethal discrimination, simply based on who they are, or what they might 

look like. This is what Roe has blocked States from doing. The people of the States were enacting, you know, voting for lawmakers, 

who would enact these good policies. Roe was blocking it, but now, 

the power has been given back to the people of the States to choose 

the sort of life affirming, life protecting polices that they want in 

their States and in their communities. 

Senator LEE. Mr. Chairman, I see my time’s expired. I do want 

to note that what Ms. Harle just said is very legitimate, and the 

doomsday calls from those on the left are ignoring common sense. 

They’re ignoring what human instinct tells us about protecting the 

most vulnerable among us. Members of this Committee, including 

some who are now attacking the Dobbs decision, once shared these 

views. Mr. Chairman, as I wrap up my remarks, I submit—I ask 

unanimous consent to submit for the record a copy of a letter that 

you wrote on August 4th, 1989, in which you said, among other 

things, quote, ‘‘I believe we should end abortion on demand. I continue to believe the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade 

should be reversed’’, end quote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chair DURBIN. Without objection. Thank you, Senator Lee, and 

now Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lieutenant Governor Stratton, I completely agree with you that it is the woman, 

not a bunch of politicians, who should decide her bodily autonomy. 

As I listen to the—all of my colleagues who support the Supreme 

Court’s recent decision, they lose sight, in my view, intentionally. 
25 

They lose sight of the fact that who should be making the decision 

about what to do with our own bodies? Us, or a bunch of politicians? 

Professor Bridges, you noted that Justice Alito chose 1868 as the 

historical basis for his decision in overturning Roe, and I agree 

with you. What is so special about 1868? Not only that, with the 

attitude or the approach of originalism, the Justices who take that 

approach go all the way back to our Founding Fathers and pretend 

that they know what our Founding Fathers meant when they 

drafted the Constitution. I use the word pretend because who the 

heck would know what our Founding Fathers meant. Is there any 

reference to AR–15 rifles in our Constitution? No. 

You noted that this is an outcome-based approach to our Constitution, and that is what Justice Alito applies. When this Committee had the hearing on the now Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, 

and Coney Barrett, of course they said Roe was precedent. Every 

single decision of the Supreme Court is a precedent, but the one 

group that can overturn precedent is the Supreme Court, and they 

are very busy doing so. In fact, I want to note—and I’m sure you’re 

familiar, Professor, with the decision that was made overturning 

Abood, which was basically a 40-year-old Supreme Court precedent 

that enabled public sector unions to collect union fees. In that decision called Janus, they just very summarily overturned that 40- 

year decision, thanks to the fact that Justice Gorsuch got on the 

Court, because when Justice Scalia died, and they had a previous 

decision called Fredericks, it was 4-to-4 decision. The minute Justice Gorsuch got on that Court, it was a 5-to-4 decision, overturning 

Abood. That is what the Supreme Court is busy doing, overturning 

precedent. I don’t know what’s going to happen to other decisions 

that protect constitutional rights, such as what Justice Thomas signaled, Obergefell, the same-sex marriage protection. That could be 

out the window if the Court applies to these kinds of cases a rational basis test rather than strict scrutiny. 

Professor, do you share the concern that I have about where this 

Court is going to go with some of these other decisions that have 

earlier been made? 

Professor BRIDGES. Absolutely, I am very concerned about where 

the Court is going to go. The logic of the Dobbs decision—the method of constitutional interpretation that the majority uses in the 

Dobbs decision should frighten everyone who holds dear these 

rights that are necessary for people to live fully human lives with 

dignity in this country. 

Obergefell v. Hodges—finding that there is a right to marry 

someone of the same sex. If you interrogate what was happening 

in 1868, no such right exists. Lawrence v. Texas—finding that there 

is a right to be free from criminal punishment for consensual sexual contact with an adult. Such a right didn’t exist in 1868. Griswold v. Connecticut. Skinner v. Oklahoma. Pierce v. Society of Sisters. Meyer v. Nebraska. I could go on and on. These rights that are 

important for marginalized people—marginalized people. Vulnerable people need these rights. Those rights simply were not contemplated by the people who drafted and ratified the Constitution 

in 1789, in 1791, or in 1868, so we should all be terrified. 
26 

Senator HIRONO. Agree with you. We have a radical group of 

very conservative Justices, who are going to be making further decisions like this. I have a question for Dr. McNicholas. You talked 

about the chaos that has been created as a result of this decision. 

I’ve been talking with some doctors in Hawaii. By the way, Hawaii 

was the first State in the union to decriminalize abortion before the 

Roe decision. In talking with some of the doctors, there is even an 

impact, potential impact on what doctors, soon-to-be doctors are 

taught in medical school. For example, D&C is a procedure that is 

utilized for miscarriages. Could medical schools in States like 

Texas no longer teach doctors how to do D&Cs because they may 

be accused of performing an abortion? 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. I appreciate that question, Senator. Yes, in 

fact, we will be creating an entire cohort of physicians who are 

underprepared to take care of pregnancy emergencies. I think it’s 

important to note that medications and procedures are simply that. 

What changes is the indication. The medications we use for medication abortion, the procedures that we use to perform procedures, 

are the same exact medicines and procedures we use for people 

who are experiencing pregnancy loss. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Hirono. Senator Blackburn. 

Senator BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

to each of you for taking the time to be here with us today. I really 

appreciate it. Ms. Harle, I want to come to you first, if I may. The 

Dobbs decision—I’ve been so interested to see the way the different 

legal scholars have approached this, and I have read that Justice 

Ginsburg had weighed in on the failures of Roe. Noting I’m going 

to quote from her. She said, quote, ‘‘It seemed entirely to remove 

the ball from the legislators’ court’’, end quote. Justice Alito had 

quoted Professor John Hart Ely’s characterization that Roe was— 

and I’m quoting his statement—‘‘not constitutional law.’’ As you 

look at this, how do you explain the flawed reasoning of Roe, and 

how Dobbs corrected the flaw? 

Ms. HARLE. That’s correct. Legal scholars on the right and the 

left have roundly criticized Roe’s reasoning. Justice Ginsburg, who 

was a proponent of abortion as a policy matter, recognized that its 

reasoning was fundamentally flawed, and she actually predicted 

that it would very likely be overturned. If I can connect this to the 

discussion about the year 1868, the reason that is the touchpoint 

is because the abortion advocates have insisted that the right to 

abortion somehow emanates out of the penumbras of nonexistent 

words in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Or 

they also sometimes say it may be in the Fourth, or the Fifth, or 

the Ninth, or other amendments. It’s not there in the text, but 

1868 is the touchpoint because the Fourteenth Amendment argument, the due process argument, is what the abortion advocates—— 

Senator BLACKBURN. Okay, well let’s turn to why the States are 

in the best position to handle this, because I read the Harvard/Harris poll. Forty-four percent of those polled wanted their State legislatures to set the abortion standards. Only 31 percent wanted Congress to do this, and only 25 percent wanted judges. Why are the 

States in the best position to do this in a fair and equitable way? 
27 

Ms. HARLE. That’s how the people get their voice heard, is that 

they—through their elected lawmakers, in their States, have a 

voice and a vote in enacting the policy. In 1973, 46 States completely protected life, with extremely limited exceptions, and Roe 

overturned that. Even that recently, that’s what the American people wanted. 

Senator BLACKBURN. What advice would you give States that are 

looking at taking this up? 

Ms. HARLE. This is an opportunity. This is an opportunity, finally, that States have had the shackles removed from Roe’s judicial power grab. It’s an opportunity for the people to have a voice 

through their elected lawmakers, to enact policies that support the 

dignity of women, that protect unborn life, that protect the health 

and safety and welfare of the citizens. Protect the integrity of the 

medical profession to, you know, remove this barbaric procedure 

that destroys families, destroys communities, and has ended the 

lives of more than 60 million babies. 

Senator BLACKBURN. I’ve talked to women on all sides of this 

issue, as you can well imagine, and I find it so interesting. Once 

they realize that much of what they’ve heard in the mainstream 

media about their being a Federal abortion ban is incorrect, and 

they realize this goes to the States, that changes the nature of the 

conversation. 

Ms. Matzke, I want to come to you for just a moment. Planned 

Parenthood gets about a half a billion dollars a year that they can 

use to fund clinic work and provide health care, but what I have 

heard from many of the clinics in Tennessee, is that Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide the services that they need for maternal 

care, the services that they need post-pregnancy. Talk with me a 

little bit about the services, what people are asking for. I thought 

this would be interesting to us as a Committee, Mr. Chairman. 

When we talk about all this money that Planned Parenthood gets, 

but then they don’t meet these needs for women who are pregnant, 

and do want to carry that baby to term and have that baby. When 

they come to you, what services are they asking you for that 

Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide? 

Ms. MATZKE. First off, thank you, Mrs. Blackburn, for asking 

that question, because it is vitally important for everyone here to 

recognize the fact that as the director of Alternatives Pregnancy 

Center, it is my responsibility to go out and raise, by myself, nongovernment funds, over $1.5 million every year. I have to figure out 

where $1.5 million is going to come from, so we can provide free 

services to women facing unplanned pregnancies. Ironically, where 

we are at, in Sacramento, California, Planned Parenthood actually 

refers patients to us. Once a woman walks into them—this has 

happened countless times in the last multiple months—if they do 

not choose abortion, they are referred to Alternatives Pregnancy 

Center to be cared for. Alternatives Pregnancy Center offers all the 

support that they need, medical as well as material support, so the 

fact that Planned Parenthood sees the value of who we are, and 

what we offer to women, I think is important for everyone here to 

understand. 

Senator BLACKBURN. Well, and Mr. Chairman, I think as we look 

at this issue, this is something that we would want to look at as 
28 

to why they do not offer that full array of health care services for 

women. Why are they choosing to make that referral to an agency 

to receive those full services, when they’re receiving hundreds of 

millions and billions of dollars? I thank you. I yield my time. 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to the 

witnesses for being here. There’s been a certain amount of talk 

during this hearing about the environment in which the Justices 

who wrote the Dobbs decision have had to operate since that decision, and I just wanted to flag in the general category of protest 

behavior the experience that I had with clinics in Rhode Island, in 

the 90’s, when I was U.S. Attorney in Rhode Island. I flag it, in 

part, because during Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s hearings, as 

a witness was brought forward to propose the narrative that these 

engagements between protesters and people seeking services at 

clinics were done in a spirit of peaceful and loving engagement. I 

lived a very different experience than that in Rhode Island and in 

Massachusetts when I became U.S. attorney. The environment outside of our Planned Parenthood clinic in Providence was so hostile 

that we were well-aware of it in law enforcement. Planned Parenthood had had to figure out ways to have people escort women coming for services into their premises through extremely hostile and 

abusive crowds. It reached a very bloody culmination in December 

1994, when a clinic protester—we think that protesters went back 

and forth between Massachusetts and Rhode Island pretty often. A 

clinic protester went into a clinic in Massachusetts and murdered 

the receptionist and shot up the place, wounding others, and then 

moved on to another clinic outside of Boston, and murdered an employee and shot others and then disappeared. Didn’t know where 

they were going. I got the news right away, and I called up the 

U.S. Marshal and I said, ‘‘Nobody knows where this guy is, right?’’ 

They said, ‘‘Nobody knows where this guy is.’’ Because we knew of 

all of the threats and all of the abusive behavior that was happening outside of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Providence, I 

said, ‘‘Well, since we don’t know where he is, we could be next. 

We’d better get over there right now.’’ So, he and I went, and it 

was a cold December day, and we just stood outside of the Planned 

Parenthood clinic and the Marshals and FBI agents ended up joining us. Then the Providence Police took over security, and as it 

happened, the shooter had drove right by on the highway, just a 

couple hundred yards away, and went on southward, where he was 

ultimately arrested, I think in Virginia. He had gone right by, and 

I’ll never know whether he pulled off and drove by and saw the activity and just decided to go on or whether he was going by anyway. 

That was the environment that we were working in with these 

clinic protesters. I want to make sure that that is absolutely clear 

on the record. This business of this all being, you know, peaceful 

and loving engagement is just not consistent with what I saw with 

my own eyes and with what the people in those two blood spattered 

clinics in Boston had to experience. 

I want to ask a very narrow question of Dr. McNicholas, if I 

could, and that is whether there are occasions when, entirely apart 
29 

from the wishes of the mom, there are circumstances in which a 

doctor in a pregnancy will make a decision or recommendation for 

a patient that an abortion is now medically necessary? Either to 

save the life of the mother or for other reasons in which it is the 

independent medical conclusion of the doctor who—and doctors 

have to make hard decisions all the time—that the best decision in 

this case is that you have to go ahead with the procedure, either 

to save the mother’s life, or for the sake of other children, or whatever. Is that a thing that happens in real life? 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. Thank you so much, Senator, and before I answer your question, briefly, I just want to again state the names 

of the two women that were murdered that you referenced. That’s 

Shannon Lowney. She was 25, and Leanna Nichols was 38. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. Absolutely, every single day we see pregnancy 

complications that put people’s lives at risk, and it is imperative 

that physicians have every tool at their disposal to be able to make 

recommendations. I say recommendations intentionally because we 

never tell people what they have to do. We give them information. 

We tell them what the risk is, and the potential complications, including death. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. What effect is Dobbs compounded by these 

anti-abortion laws in State legislatures having on doctors’ abilities 

to make those decisions and provide those services to women, when 

medically necessary? 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. In addition to the hat I wear as Chief Medical 

Officer for Planned Parenthood, I’m also an elected official for the 

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and we are 

hearing, every single day, from our members, that they are afraid. 

They’re afraid to make decisions that they know are the best 

health care for people. They’re afraid of how sick they have to wait 

for people to get before they can take care of them. It is, you 

know—health conditions evolve, sometimes minute to minute, 

sometimes day to day, sometimes it takes weeks. The truth is that 

if we are setting up a system by which we are forcing people to sustain preventable morbidity and mortality, we are totally leaving an 

entire population of people behind. We are telling women that not 

only are they not allowed the decision to control their own body, 

but now we’re not going to allow you to control your own body and 

make decisions when it means that you could potentially be leaving 

the three children you have behind when you die from that delayed 

care. It is quite disgraceful. It happens every single day, and ACOG 

is hearing every single day from people on the ground, right? I tell 

my 12-year-old all the time, intent and impact are different, and 

whatever the intent is of overturning Roe, the impact is that it is 

utter chaos and people are being harmed. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you for telling us about that impact. 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Supreme Court’s 

decision in Dobbs was a victory for democracy in America. Abortion 

is an issue on which the American people have strong and passionate views and disagree, as the witnesses here at this hearing 

demonstrate. Those disagreements have been longstanding, and the 
30 

way our Constitution operates, typically, on issues in which there 

is sharp disagreement, it is the democratic process that resolves 

that disagreement. 

When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, seven 

unelected judges said to the American people, ‘‘Your views don’t 

matter. Your desire to protect innocent life doesn’t matter. We 

know better than you, and we are going to prevent you from making decisions about protecting life.’’ The consequence of that has 

been five decades of deep political division because the democratic 

process was prevented from operating. 

Now, that a 6–3 Majority of the Supreme Court has overturned 

that decision, questions of abortion will return to the elected 

branches of government. The democratic process will be allowed to 

operate. That will mean in bright blue States, tragically, we’ll continue to see unlimited abortion on demand. In redder States, we 

will see some meaningful restrictions on abortions. Those restrictions will vary State by State, depending on the values and mores 

of their citizens. That’s how our Constitution was meant to operate. 

If you disagree with the abortion laws in your State, you have 

an outlet to express that disagreement. You have an outlet to be 

involved in the political process. You have an outlet to advocate for 

what you believe the law should be. You’re not forced to live under 

the rule of unelected judges operating as philosopher kings and decreeing the rules for 330 million Americans. 

I believe abortion is a tragedy, the over 60 million unborn children who’ve never breathed a breath of air, who’ve never lived, 

who’ve never danced, who’ve never hugged, who’ve never loved. 

Our country is far poorer for the millions of African-American children who never had a chance to live and contribute to our country. 

Unfortunately, one of the consequences of the Court taking this 

out of the Democratic process is today’s modern Democrat party 

has become radicalized on abortion. The case Planned Parenthood 

v. Casey, a lot of people don’t know that the Casey in question 

there was Governor Bob Casey, who’s a Democrat and who was 

pro-life. Today’s Democrat party has said, ‘‘If you’re pro-life, get the 

hell out. Your views are not welcome in our party.’’ 

Part of the reason that Democrats in this hearing are painting 

the Dobbs decision in such apocalyptic terms, is they know their 

view of abortion, which is unlimited abortion on demand up until 

the moment of birth, partial birth abortion, with Government funding, with no parental notification, and no parental consent is supported by a tiny minority of Americans. They know that the voters, 

when given a chance, don’t support that radical view, and I will 

point out that there was a time when Democrats used to say the 

same thing. 

We all remember Bill Clinton, who said he wanted to see abortion safe, legal, and rare. Today’s Democratic party doesn’t want it 

rare. It wants as much abortion as possible. I’ll tell you this, when 

Roe v. Wade was decided, one Democrat who spoke up against it 

was a fellow named Joseph Robinette Biden, who said in 1974, 

quote, ‘‘I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think 

it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has a sole right to say 

what should happen to her body.’’ That was Joe Biden in 1974. 

Now, you may say, ‘‘Okay, that was a long time ago.’’ All right let’s 
31 

go to 2007, just 15 years ago, 2007 Joe Biden—Tim Russert says, 

‘‘You supported that ban on late term abortions.’’ Biden said, ‘‘I did, 

and I do.’’ That was 15 years ago. 

Just weeks ago, the Democrats in this body voted to strike down 

every restriction on abortion across this country, including bans on 

partial birth abortion, and every single Democrat but one voted for 

it. Maybe you might say, ‘‘You know what? Joe Biden was out of 

step.’’ Well, there’s someone else who had similar views, the Chairman of this Committee. 

In a June 1983 letter, the Chairman of this Committee wrote, 

quote, ‘‘I have clearly studied the issue of abortion in depth, and 

favor the Eagleton Amendment, which states clearly that the right 

to abortion is not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The effect 

of this amendment will be to return us to the legal environment 

which existed before Roe v. Wade in 1973.’’ Signed Richard J. Durbin, Member of Congress. That view continued in August 1989. 

Chairman Durbin wrote, and again I quote, ‘‘I believe we should 

end abortion on demand, and at every opportunity I have translated this belief into votes in the House of Representatives.’’ He 

continued to say, ‘‘I continue to believe the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade should be reversed.’’ That was the view of a 

lot of Democrats not that long ago. But today’s Democratic party 

is afraid of the voters on this issue. What the Supreme Court has 

done is returned this deeply personal, deeply important, deeply 

contentious issue to the voters. To let the American people decide, 

that’s democracy. All of us should be happy about that fact. 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Cruz. Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 

the women who’ve come here to testify. I know it’s a sacrifice to 

come in for such an important day. Ms. Harle, can I just ask you 

a quick question, and just for the sake of time, could you just give 

me from your heart, a yes or a no? If Congress were to pass a national abortion ban, would that be something that you would support? 

Ms. HARLE. I think our laws should protect all human life. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you. 

Ms. HARLE. Yes. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. Ms. Stratton, there’s 

been a lot—something said by my colleagues about, I seem to 

imply, that allowing women to have access to safe abortion care is 

somehow racist against African Americans. Would you take brief 

moment to address that for me? 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. Absolutely, thank you, Senator for that question. First and foremost, I would think, as we look at the disproportionate impact that abortion bans and restrictions have on Black 

women in particular, and the harm that has been caused, it is cruel 

to deny that access to abortion is actually what is liberating for 

Black women. To be able to have bodily autonomy and the ability 

to decide what’s best for their bodies, for their lives, and their futures. 

I am the mother, as I said in my opening remarks, of four daughters, three of whom are adults, and I had to have a very painful 

conversation with them, first upon the Leak decision, and then, of 

course, with the Dobbs ruling, about how could they possibly have 
32 

fewer rights than their mother had. They should be able to decide 

for themselves and make a personal decision about what is in their 

futures, and we’ve already had a conversation about maternal mortality rates, infant mortality rates, related to the racial disparities 

that are attached to that. 

This is—you know, to talk about what happens with children and 

recognizing that after a child is born that they do not have access 

to resources. They are not given what’s needed to address the systemic racism that they are going to experience throughout their 

lives, to make sure that there’s no help that’s given to these families, Black and brown families across our country, in the wake of 

these abortion bans and restrictions. It’s contradictory to so much 

of what we have heard today. This is not about helping. This is 

only going to harm and cause immeasurable suffering. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, and Dr. Bridges, and Dr. 

McNicholas, maybe to that point, I’ve been looking at just data and 

seeing that States that provide a great access to contraception, free 

access to contraception, actually lower rates of unwanted pregnancies, like Colorado, lower rates of abortion by empowering 

women, and low-income women in particular. In the dissent of the 

Dobbs case, they pointed out, what to me was absurd. The reality 

that many of the States moving to create the most restrictive bans 

on abortion are the very States that aren’t doing the things that 

are obvious to lower the rates of maternal death, like expanding 

Medicaid. This argument that they value life by not providing access to contraception, by not expanding Medicaid, their States have 

some of the worst records for women dying in pregnancy-related 

causes. It seems rank hypocrisy to me, and especially as it affects 

African-American women who die three times more. I was wondering if you just maybe, Dr. McNicholas and Dr. Bridges, could 

just as cogently as possible in the limited time I have left, can you 

just talk about how these bans, in the name of life, are actually 

causing so much more death in communities, especially for the 

most vulnerable women. 

Professor BRIDGES. I’m just going to take 30 seconds and then I’ll 

pass it to you. Thank you so much for that question. I want to also 

point out that the States that are passing the most restrictive laws 

around abortion are also the States that are preventing people 

from voting. Senator Lee, Senator Cruz have talked about, ‘‘Oh, 

this decision just returned—this Dobbs decision just returned it to 

the elected representatives of States to—and people can battle it 

out in these laboratories of democracy,’’ as to whether they want 

to protect fetal life over the interest of the pregnant person. These 

are the same States that are stopping people from voting. Texas 

has the most restrictive voting laws on the books. Texas’s S.B. 8 

doesn’t represent the will of the majority of Texans. Texas S.B. 8 

represents the will of the majority of Texans that were able to vote. 

In order for this to be a democracy, we have to protect voting 

rights, and I leave it to everyone in this room, as well as the rest 

of Congress, to protect voting rights so that we can be a real democracy. 

Senator BOOKER. With the indulgence of the Chair, would you 

please respond? 
33 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. Thank you so much. I think it’s been well-represented here that maternal mortality is the highest in States that 

are banning abortion and preventing access to things like expanding Medicaid. I will add one more thing, which is that as a physician who gets to care for many Black women, ultimately, at the end 

of the day, I trust that Black women know what they want and 

what they need for their own health care. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you. Thank you for the indulgence, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator COONS [presiding]. Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Professor Bridges, 

you, in your testimony talked about the prevalence of abortion, the 

percentage of Black babies that are aborted as opposed to nonBlack babies. I think you said three or four times more Black babies than non-Black babies are aborted. You also talk about systemic racism. Do you see any systemic racism associated with the 

prevalence of abortion for Black babies, as opposed to non-Black 

babies? 

Professor BRIDGES. Absolutely. The higher rates of unintended 

pregnancy that lead to higher abortion rates among Black people 

is a result of structural racism, systemic racism. I understand systemic racism not to be boogie men who are trying to dupe Black 

people into abortion care. I understand structural racism to be the 

systems that have made it so that Black people disproportionally 

bear the burdens of poverty in this country, the systems that have 

denied them the basics that they need in order to live humane 

lives, like food, clothing, shelter, health care—— 

Senator CORNYN. So, you believe—— 

Professor BRIDGES [continuing]. A system that responds with the 

criminal legal system—— 

Senator CORNYN. You believe that there ought to be more Black 

babies aborted. Is that right? 

Professor BRIDGES. I believe that we ought to create the conditions under which people can lead lives that are filled with dignity 

and humanity, and being able to—— 

Senator CORNYN. To your way of thinking, that happens when 

more Black babies are aborted? 

Professor BRIDGES. I believe, I trust, I love Black people with the 

capacity for pregnancy. I think they have agency, they have intelligence, they know what is best for themselves, and I would love 

to create the conditions under which they can live lives that are 

filled with dignity and humanity. 

Senator CORNYN. Do you think a baby that is delivered alive has 

value? 

Professor BRIDGES. Yes. 

Senator CORNYN. Do you think a baby that is not yet born has 

value? 

Professor BRIDGES. I believe that a person with a capacity for 

pregnancy has value. They have intelligence. They have agency—— 

Senator CORNYN. No, I’m talking about the baby. 

Professor BRIDGES. I’m talking about the person with the capacity for pregnancy—— 

Senator CORNYN. You’re not answering the question I’m asking—— 
34 

Professor BRIDGES. I’m answering—— 

Senator CORNYN. Do you think that a—— 

Professor BRIDGES. I’m answering a more interesting question to 

me. 

Senator CORNYN. Do you think that a baby that is not yet born— 

let’s say the day before this mother delivers—do you think that 

baby has value? 

Professor BRIDGES. I think that the person with the capacity for 

pregnancy has value, and they have the—they should have the 

ability to control what happens to their lives. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, and I’d just note that you refuse to answer the question. Ms. Harle, the Declaration of Independence 

talks about certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit 

of happiness. When do you think that inalienable right to life attaches? 

Ms. HARLE. Thank you. Yes, life is a human right, and when I 

answered Senator Booker’s question earlier that I think our laws 

should protect all human life, I think I was focusing on the hard 

part, and I didn’t mean to suggest that it’s a matter of congressional authority to enact the law that you described, but I do think 

that the American people understand that you have no rights if 

you don’t have the right to life. That is a principle that our Nation 

was founded upon, and every human being from its earliest existence has its own DNA and has a future. If we don’t extinguish it, 

it has a future. And that is a human right. It is the value and 

mores, as Senator Cruz was speaking of, that goes back to the 

founding of nation, even at common law, and all the way up until 

1973 when those life affirming laws in 46 States were turned on 

their heads by the Supreme Court. I believe that’s what the American people believe. Life is a human right. 

Senator CORNYN. Governor Stratton, as I listen to your testimony, it seems to me that you’re advocating for abortion, at any 

time, for any reason, at any point during a woman’s pregnancy. Is 

that correct? 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. What I’m advocating for is for everyone to 

have the right to determine what’s best for their life, their body, 

and their future—— 

Senator CORNYN. At any time, at any point in the pregnancy. Is 

that correct? 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. I’m advocating for everyone to have the right 

to make the personal decision about what’s best for their life, their 

body, and their future. 

Senator CORNYN. I don’t—— 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. Everyone should have that right. 

Senator CORNYN. Do you not understand my question? My question is are you advocating that there’s a right to abortion at any 

time, for any reason, at any point during a pregnancy? 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. I’m not sure if you understand my answer, 

but what I’m saying—— 

Senator CORNYN. No, I understand that you’re not answering the 

question—— 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. Okay. Then we’re—I—— 

Senator CORNYN. What amazes me is the advocacy for unlimited 

abortion rights, where there is zero value placed on an unborn 
35 

child. I think Senator Cruz pointed out, obviously, abortion is a 

very emotional and divisive issue in our society. One reason why 

we haven’t had conversations like this is because the Supreme 

Court has said, ‘‘You can’t talk about it because it’s out of bounds.’’ 

It’s in the Constitution, as opposed to it being decided in a legislative forum like the States. 

What I don’t understand is the argument that a unborn child has 

zero value, the day before it’s delivered, but then has value the day 

after it’s born. Ms. Matzke, can you help explain that? 

Ms. MATZKE. Thank you so much, Senator. Yes, I actually can. 

As a matter of fact, here in California there is a law that’s about 

to be passed called the A.B. 2223, and this law basically will 

allow—as a woman is in the midst of a chemical abortion and she 

delivers a baby alive on the floor at any stage of pregnancy or in 

a hospital, that baby, if this law is passed, has the ability to be 

born alive and left to die. 

No matter what, a baby in the womb, or outside of the womb has 

value, and we are not just talking about the value of a life in the 

womb right now. We are also talking about the value of a life in 

California, after it is born, and allowing it to die, up to 28 days 

after birth. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. As we’ve heard today in testimony, 

both from my colleagues and from this panel, the conservative, activist majority on the Supreme Court abandoned decades of precedent protecting the rights of women to choose their reproductive 

health course. It has immediate consequences for the autonomy 

and the health of millions and millions of women in this country. 

I am concerned that the restrictions that we’ve seen in Dobbs’ wake 

will further exacerbate inequalities and access to health care in 

this country. 

Some of the States, as my colleague, Senator Booker just observed, that are rushing to restrict this right also have among the 

highest maternal mortality rates in this country. I am grateful that 

President Biden promptly took steps to mitigate the impacts of the 

Court’s policy decision. These topics are intensely emotional and divisive and are challenging for us to work through in an appropriate, safe, and constructive way in the democratic process. They 

are and should be the focus of discussion, debate, and action here 

and in the months ahead. 

I’m going to focus my questions today on the radical, legal, implications of this activist Court’s decision in Dobbs, and the very real 

human consequences and impact. Weeks ago, generations of women 

and girls in our country understood the Constitution protected 

them against being forced to bear children against their will. Today 

those same women and girls have been told that the right to make 

their own decisions about reproductive health is not a right, a freedom guaranteed under our laws, and depending on where they live, 

that the State may force them to carry a pregnancy to term and 

give birth. 

If I might, Professor Bridges, the conservative history and tradition analysis, as I understand it, seems to fundamentally shortchange the rights of women and other groups of people, racial, religious minorities, who had no power in the democratic process at 

the relevant time when key decisions were made and thus is fun-
36 

damentally flawed. I’d be interested in your brief comments on 

what’s the danger of the Justices’ reliance on selective historical 

analysis to roll back a fundamental and protected constitutional 

right? If this majority can engage in a moment of activism to reverse precedent that guarantees protections for women’s bodily autonomy, what other fundamental rights might reasonably be imagined to be at risk? 

Professor BRIDGES. Right, so, looking to the Nation’s history, 

whether that, you know, date is 1787, when the Constitution was 

ratified; 1789, when the Bill of Rights was ratified; or 1868, when 

the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, is to look at periods of the 

Nation’s histories in which marginalized populations today were 

completely erased. I can talk about the LGBTQ community. They 

were not contemplated by the Framers, by those who ratified the 

Constitution. Their ability to live lives that are—have dignity, their 

ability to love who they love and to marry who they marry. That 

just wasn’t contemplated by those folks who ratified the Constitution. People of color, immigrants, people with disabilities, people 

with the capacity for pregnancy, right? All of those groups were not 

simply thought of, and their interests were not considered during 

that moment in the Nation’s history. I can tell you the litany of 

cases that we ought to be wary about being reversed. Obergefell v. 

Hodges, Lawrence v. Texas, Loving v. Virginia, Skinner v. Oklahoma—— 

Senator COONS. Professor, what’s the common thread across all 

those cases? Some folks that are watching may not know as much 

as you do about the specifics of what kinds of freedoms are protected by the whole line of cases. 

Professor BRIDGES. We’re talking about—the Court framed these 

cases. The link that links them is this: Using the liberty term of 

the Due Process Clause to recognize that people need the capacity 

to make decisions about their personal lives, about whether they 

create a family, about how they raise their family, about decisions 

regarding love and sex and marriage. And, so, to pull Roe out of 

that thread of cases that have all recognized the right to privacy 

and liberty interests, is to create chaos and create uncertainty, 

with regard to cases that came after, and that’s Lawrence v. Texas, 

protecting same-sex contact, same-sex marriage, as well as the 

cases that came before. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Professor. That’s an insightful comment on how much else is at risk here and why this impacts fundamental rights that many of us, millions of us come to rely on to 

make decisions about our own life, about our families, about who 

we love, how we love, and when and how we choose to have children. 

Lt. Governor, if I might—I’m almost out of time. Nothing in the 

Dobbs opinion blocks States from subjecting abortion providers, 

women and girls, and others seeking abortion care, and trying to 

help them access abortion care to criminal penalties. Is that correct? There’s nothing in the Dobbs decision that blocks States from 

imposing criminal penalties for seeking to access abortion care. Do 

you expect, as a result of this decision, we’ll have now a whole series of efforts at the State level that will result in contentious liti-
37 

gation and imposition, potential criminal penalties of folks who are 

simply trying to help family members access abortion care? 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. I think that we are in the midst of seeing the 

kind of chaos that has been created by this decision in what is happening all across the country, where we are seeing different decisions, legislation that’s been both proposed and passed. We’ve seen 

trigger laws. We’ve seen people seeking to travel from State to 

State and cross State lines. It is chaotic, and it is something that 

is causing harm and causes insurmountable challenges, quite 

frankly, for those who are trying to figure out what’s possible. We 

need to make sure that people have the right to make decisions 

about what’s best for them, with their physician, not from politicians. That’s exactly what has been opened up with this decision. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor. Thank you to 

all of our witnesses. Mr. Chairman. 

Chair DURBIN [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Coons. We’re voting on the floor, so we’re trying to both things. Senator Hawley. 

Senator HAWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of the 

witnesses for being here. Before—I want to visit with you Ms. 

Matzke, but before I do, I just want to clear one thing up. Professor 

Bridges, you said several times—you’ve used a phrase—I want to 

make sure I understand what you mean by it. You’ve referred to 

people with a capacity for pregnancy. Would that be women? 

Professor BRIDGES. Many women, cis women, have the capacity 

for pregnancy. Many cis women do not have the capacity for pregnancy. There are also trans men who are capable of pregnancy, as 

well as nonbinary people who are capable of pregnancy. 

Senator HAWLEY. This isn’t really a women’s rights issue, it’s 

a—— 

Professor BRIDGES. We can recognize that this impacts women 

while also recognizing that it impacts other groups. Those things 

are not mutually exclusive, Senator Hawley. 

Senator HAWLEY. Your view is that the core of this right then is 

about what? 

Professor BRIDGES. I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic, and it opens up trans people to violence by 

not recognizing them. 

Senator HAWLEY. Wow, you’re saying that I’m opening up people 

to violence by asking whether or not women are the folks who can 

have pregnancies? 

Professor BRIDGES. I want to note that one out of five 

transgender persons have attempted suicide, so I think it’s important—— 

Senator HAWLEY. Because of my line of questioning? We can’t 

talk about it? 

Professor BRIDGES. Because denying that trans people exist, and 

pretending not to know that they exist is—— 

Senator HAWLEY. I’m denying that trans people exist by asking—— 

Professor BRIDGES. Are you? Are you? 

Senator HAWLEY [continuing]. You if you’re talking about—— 

Professor BRIDGES. Are you? 

Senator HAWLEY [continuing]. Women having pregnancies? 

Professor BRIDGES. Do you believe that men can get pregnant? 
38 

Senator HAWLEY. No, I don’t think men can get pregnant. 

Professor BRIDGES. You are denying that trans people exist. 

Senator HAWLEY. That leads to violence? Is this how you run 

your classroom. Are students allowed to question you, or—— 

Professor BRIDGES. Absolutely. 

Senator HAWLEY [continuing]. Are they also treated like this 

where—— 

Professor BRIDGES. No, no, no. 

Senator HAWLEY [continuing]. They are told that they’re opening 

up people to violence by questioning? 

Professor BRIDGES. Oh, we have a good time in my class. You 

should join. 

Senator HAWLEY. I bet. 

Professor BRIDGES. You might learn a lot. 

Senator HAWLEY. Wow. I would learn a lot. I’ve learned a lot just 

in this exchange. 

Professor BRIDGES. I know. Absolutely. 

Senator HAWLEY. Extraordinary. 

Professor BRIDGES. Yes. 

Senator HAWLEY. Ms. Matzke, let me ask you something. You 

provide health care to women free of charge, right? Is that right? 

Ms. MATZKE. Absolutely. 

Senator HAWLEY. You’ve done this for many years? 

Ms. MATZKE. Yes. 

Senator HAWLEY. You have licensed medical professionals at 

your pregnancy care center. Is that right? 

Ms. MATZKE. That is correct. 

Senator HAWLEY. What are some of the resources that you provide for women who come to you in a time of need? Just give us 

a—you’ve talked about it in your written testimony—but just give 

us a sense of it. 

Ms. MATZKE. We have three OB/GYN doctors, five registered 

nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, phlebotomists, 

medical assistants. We provide prenatal care, OB/GYN care. We 

provide pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, well-woman visits, breast 

exams. We provide a wide range of medical services, yes. 

Senator HAWLEY. What do you think about the D.C. politicians 

now saying that your clinic and the other 3,000 pregnancy care 

centers around this country are fake medical clinics? For instance, 

Senator Warren has said, ‘‘It’s now more important than ever to 

crack down on so-called crisis pregnancy centers that mislead and 

deceive patients.’’ Senator Menendez, ‘‘Crisis pregnancy centers 

jeopardize women’s health and well-being, all while elevating 

unproven theories about birth control.’’ Senator Warner wrote to 

Google asking them to censor search results for care centers like 

yours, saying, ‘‘Directing women to fake clinics that traffic in misinformation is dangerous to women’s health and undermines the 

integrity of Google’s search results.’’ 

Do you run a fake clinic? Is that what’s happening here? You 

don’t provide actually medical care to actual women? 

Ms. MATZKE. We absolutely do not run a fake clinic, and we have 

a full medical staff. Like I said, many of our medical professionals 

have experienced abortion themselves, including our OB/GYN doctor, who used to perform abortions. Our entire medical staff is 
39 

there for women, whether they choose abortion and walk out the 

door, or whether they choose life for their baby and we support 

them for years after that. 

Senator HAWLEY. Do you think there ought to be an ideological 

test to be able to get medical care in this country? I mean, is that— 

should we say to women, ‘‘Well, you have to agree with the D.C. 

Democrats ideology; otherwise you can’t go get medical care’’? Or 

maybe for you and the physicians who work at your pregnancy care 

center, or the thousands of others across the country, should we 

impose an ideological test on them and say that, ‘‘Well, you have 

to agree with the D.C. Democrats’ position on abortion, or you can’t 

provide medical care to women?’’ Should we do that in this country? 

Ms. MATZKE. Absolutely not. 

Senator HAWLEY. I just want to ask in my few remaining seconds 

here. Ms. Harle, the Dobbs decision as I understand it—I’ve read 

it now a number of times—it gives to voters the decision as to what 

law should be pertaining to life and pertaining to abortion in all 

50 States and other jurisdictions around the country. I’m just curious, do you know what percentage of voters in this country support 

the D.C. Democrats’ position that they want to impose on the entire country, a one size fits all rule they want to impose, from the 

top down. Do you know what percentage of voters support their position, which is also by the way, the same position taken by North 

Korea, China, other notable violators of human rights? Do you 

know what percentage it is? 

Ms. HARLE. I know that nearly 90 percent of Americans oppose 

abortion in the third trimester. The number that would support 

abortion up to the moment of birth has to be miniscule. It’s a horrific policy. 

Senator HAWLEY. Yes, I mean, based on the most recent Harvard 

poll that was just released just a few days ago, less than 10 percent 

of voters say that they would support abortion into the final month 

of pregnancy, and yet that is the law that the D.C. politicians want 

to impose on every voter in America. To take this away from the 

people, take it away from my State, take it away from all the other 

States and the voters in the States, but impose this law, uniformly, 

that is not supported by 90 percent of the American people. Talk 

about anti-Democratic. At the same time, they want to shut down 

3,000 pregnancy care centers all around this country. That’s radical. Thank you for being here. 

Chair DURBIN. Senator Padilla. 

Senator PADILLA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for your 

participation here today. As I believe you’re all aware, this last Friday, President Biden signed a crucial executive order, seeking to 

protect access to reproductive health care nationwide. While I appreciate the President’s efforts and the importance that his administration has placed on this issue, as we’ve discussed here at the 

hearing today, people of color, economically disadvantaged families, 

immigrants, and members of Tribal communities have faced significant barriers to receiving adequate health care, even before Roe 

was overturned. Those barriers will only further increase now. 

In a country where the Black maternal mortality rate is triple 

that of white women, we should not be forcing anyone to carry 
40 

pregnancies to term, if they wish to terminate for health or other 

reasons, period. If we are serious about protecting lives in America, 

we should be ensuring that mothers across the country have every 

medical resource available. Anything less is simply unacceptable. 

My first question is for Professor Bridges, since you are from my 

home State of California. In your written testimony, you mentioned 

how the harshest effects of Dobbs will fall on Black people, Black 

women, Black families. Can you describe how this decision will impact the maternal mortality rate for Black women? 

Professor BRIDGES. Absolutely. As you’ve already noted, Black 

people with the capacity for pregnancy have a maternal mortality 

rate that is three to four times the rate of their white counterparts. 

I also think it’s important to mention maternal morbidity, severe 

maternal morbidity. Our rates are twice that of our white counterparts, meaning that we have to undergo a lifesaving intervention, 

like mechanical ventilation, like a hysterectomy, in order to keep 

our lives during pregnancy, childbirth, or the postpartum period. 

Removing abortion access, removing the ability to safely terminate 

a pregnancy compels birth, which is simply more dangerous for 

Black people. I want to just mention that this is not inevitable. 

Black people don’t have a gene that causes us just to die. These 

are social causes of these disparities of maternal mortality and 

morbidity, meaning that we, as a society, have not invested the resources that can make pregnancy, childbirth, and the post-partum 

period safe for Black people. 

Senator PADILLA. Thank you. A question for Lieutenant Governor 

Stratton. Note respect that Illinois has taken steps to ensure that 

abortion remains legal for all, regardless of their background. Can 

you elaborate a little bit on how the elimination of abortion restrictions is essential in achieving reproductive, as well as economic 

and racial justice? 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. Absolutely, thank you, Senator, for that question. First and foremost, in addition to the conversations that we 

have been having about maternal mortality and the disproportionate impact on Black women in particular, I want to talk about 

some of the other long-lasting restrictions that we will see from— 

the long-lasting impacts of the restrictions or bans to abortion. This 

includes an increased risk of intimate partner violence. We know 

that for pregnant people, intimate partner violence and, in fact, it’s 

one of the leading causes of homicide for—homicide is one of the 

leading causes of death for pregnant women. We know that it will 

be increased health problems regardless of not just because of maternal mortality, but also other health issues that can exist far beyond that point of giving birth, as well as the financial and economic risks. The strain, increased evictions, increased poverty, living in long-term poverty, being in debt. Listen, I am a mother to 

four daughters, and I can tell you for anybody who is a parent, 

raising a child is expensive. To talk about forcing someone to, you 

know, become a parent, and give birth, and to carry out a pregnancy to term, when that is not what that person wants, that as 

has been stated before by Professor Bridges is a form of violence. 

People should be able to choose what’s best for themselves. Politicians are not health care professionals, and we should be able to 

have that bodily autonomy to decide, not just what’s best for our 
41 

bodies, but what’s best for our futures. Maybe it’s not the right 

time to start a family. We should be able to decide that for ourselves, as it has been for close to the last 50 years. 

Senator PADILLA. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I know my time is limited. I’ll truncate my final question if that’s okay—just to ask one 

final question. Recognizing that in the majority opinion, Justice 

Alito wrote that Americans need not worry about the broader implications of the right-wing majority’s decision to overturn Roe. He 

said it’s limited to this. Yet, and in it’s concurrent to Justice Alito’s 

opinion, Justice Thomas makes it explicitly clear that those other 

rights are not actually secure. It has invited the Supreme Court to 

take up cases to revisit other areas of what we had believed to be 

settled law. 

Professor Bridges, does the reasoning in Justice Alito’s opinion 

striking down Roe actually—is it possible, or likely it could be applied to other areas of settled law that could go backward on access 

to contraception, rights as it pertains to marriage, intimate relations, and other fundamental rights? 

Professor BRIDGES. Absolutely, the Court’s protestations that it is 

not at all touching those cases rings very hollow. The logic of the 

decision, the methodology of constitutional interpretation leave all 

of those decisions that Justice Thomas himself highlighted open to 

revisiting and reversal. 

Senator PADILLA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair DURBIN. Senator Ossoff. 

Senator OSSOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 

panelists. Thank you for your testimony and your presence today. 

I believe I may be concluding this hearing—one more after this? I 

would like to focus these few minutes, if I might, on the real-world 

impact on the consequences for women’s health, women’s lives, 

women’s risk of death or grievous injury. Of laws such as the one 

we have on the books, not yet enforced, but perhaps soon. H.B. 481 

in Georgia, which bans abortions beginning at 6 weeks, before 

many women even know their pregnant, with very limited exceptions. In other States, where even more draconian and extreme 

bans on abortion are on the books, just waiting to be enforced as 

this decision and its implications make their way through the 

courts. 

Dr. McNicholas, based upon your experience, when a State government steps in and decides it will regulate pregnancy and forbid 

a woman in consultation with her doctor from making the personal 

choice about her pregnancy, as early as 6 weeks in pregnancy, 

what are the implications for women’s health? 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. Thank you so much, Senator, for raising the 

issue. I want to recognize you’re probably the closest to the issue 

in some personal experience with your wife being an OB/GYN, so 

certainly you have heard some of the stories already. You know, 

the truth is pregnancy is complicated, and it can become life 

threatening at any moment. You know, I’m going to go radical here 

and say I’ve heard lots of talk about whether this should be decided 

at the State level or at the Federal level. I’m going to go bold and 

say it actually should be considered in the medical world. This is 

a health care issue. This isn’t a legal issue, or it shouldn’t be decided by State representatives or Federal representatives. It should 
42 

be decided by a patient and their family. They are the only person 

who can know whether it is appropriate to start a family or to expand their family. 

I have had so many examples over my lifetime and my career of 

just how complicated pregnancy can get, and just how quickly 

somebody can go from completely healthy to on the verge of death. 

Pregnancy is no joke, and as we see more and more States deny 

access to this lifesaving care, we will see more people harmed. We 

are already seeing that. You know, in the wake of Texas’ and Oklahoma’s bans, we saw an increase of more than 120 percent of people outside of our area. 

You know, all this talk about abortion later in pregnancy, I’m 

going to tell you that the only relevant fact about abortion later in 

pregnancy right now, is that these bans will, in fact, push people 

to later in pregnancy when they are having their abortions. It will 

not be because of the work that I do that people get abortion later 

in pregnancy, it will be because of all of these people that support 

bans. That is why people will have abortion later in pregnancy. 

Senator OSSOFF. I’d like to continue, Doctor, with the discussion 

on the impact on the practice of medicine. These are extraordinarily complex medical cases. 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. Yes, absolutely. You know, particularly for 

folks who are experiencing either worsening chronic medical conditions, or new conditions related to pregnancy specifically, it is so 

imperative that physicians, their entire care team, which include 

obstetricians, and perinatologist, and neonatologist, and pediatricians, that they have every single tool available to them, so that 

they can present patients with all of their options to preserve their 

health. 

You know, as I think about the phone calls I’m getting from physicians across the State of Missouri, in my role, again, as an ACOG 

leadership, what I’m hearing people say is, ‘‘My hospital sent me 

a policy that says, ‘I have to wait until their blood count drops, or 

until their vitals are unstable before I can take them’. I have to 

wait until it’s clear that they are so sick, that their infection is so 

bad that they now require intensive care.’’ These are completely 

preventable occurrences in a person’s life that not only impact that 

pregnancy, but every pregnancy to potentially follow. We’re talking 

about people leaving families, you know? If and when these people 

are dying from delayed care, they’re leaving behind kids. They’re 

leaving behind families. There is some real tragic impact that we 

are going to see in the coming days, weeks, and months. 

Senator OSSOFF. In sum, Doctor, I might ask you your opinion, 

who are the people in the world best qualified to determine when 

someone’s life is at risk, when someone’s health is at risk, and 

what health care someone needs? 

Dr. MCNICHOLAS. You know, about 16 years of education, and 

lots of years of practicing, sitting at the bedside with patients, and 

learning from my colleagues in different specialties, physicians and 

health care providers are the ones who are best prepared to decide. 

The truth is, that’s why we’ve seen in the recent days more than 

75 professional medical organizations sign on to a statement detesting this decision. We’re not talking just OB/GYNs. We’re talking rheumatologists and oncologists and psychiatrists and anesthe-
43 

siologists, people who may peripherally touch abortion care, but 

recognize how dangerous it is that physicians are now being told 

that it isn’t their clinical expertise that should guide the health 

care that they provide. That it is actually the Attorney General or 

a lawyer’s opinion about whether that is sick enough. It’s tragic 

and it will put people at harm. 

Senator OSSOFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you. We are joined by Senator Blumenthal, 

who is recovering from Covid, and I hope he is with us. Dick, are 

you there? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I’m with you, Mr. Chairman, and hope 

that you can hear me and that the witnesses can hear me. I want 

to begin by thanking every one of them for being with us today, 

and I apologize for being with you remotely. This hearing has been 

enlightening, and I want to just begin by saying that in the last 

few weeks, I’ve traveled around the State of Connecticut to clinics 

and visiting providers in Waterbury, New Haven, New London, 

Hartford, and as much as I have felt their anguish and anger, their 

fear about the future, I’m also impressed by their resilience, and 

their resolve to continue providing these essential health care services. 

Connecticut, fortunately, decades ago enacted a law that enshrines Roe v. Wade. I helped to lead that effort in the 1990’s and 

consequently, Connecticut has been confident of those rights over 

these times. Now we face, at the Federal level, the same challenge. 

I’m helping to lead the effort on the Women’s Health Protection 

Act, which would incorporate Roe v. Wade into our statutes. Let me 

just say very bluntly, any Senator, any person who says they are 

in favor of choice should be in favor of the Women’s Health Protection Act. Senators who say they are pro-choice should vote in favor 

of the Women’s Health Protection Act, and unfortunately, no Republican voted in favor of it the last time we had a vote, just 

months ago. That is truly one of the ways to protect reproductive 

rights. 

We also have other legislation pending, such as Senator Hirono’s 

bill to protect privacy of medical records, rights of travel. The 

House will be hopefully voting this week on some of those steps. 

In the meantime, I commend President Biden for moving forward 

with protections and urge, again, that he declare a national emergency. We truly face an emergency every bit as dire as the opioid 

epidemic and Covid crisis, which have prompted declarations of 

emergency in the past. I urge that President Biden, as we said to 

him in a letter recently, declare that emergency. 

Just very bluntly, I was so impressed by the Illinois Lieutenant 

Governor’s testimony that we face a future rife with needless 

death. The plain fact is that Dobbs is a death sentence for many 

women around our country, and they will come to States like Connecticut, which has moved forward in the past year with the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act. It provides protections unparalleled, 

as far as I know, among any State, so far, in the country. Although, 

a number have enacted Roe protections, such as Illinois and Delaware and others, either by statute or executive order. 

Connecticut has gone further by creating rights of action for individuals who are pursued by bounty hunters to call back the costs. 
44 

It said, in effect, that it will not cooperate with extradition attempts or other kinds of criminal enforcement attempts by Texas 

or Oklahoma or other States that have laws. Eventually, it will 

probably be about 26 of them. 

Here is my question to Lieutenant Governor Stratton. States like 

Connecticut and Illinois face an impending surge of women seeking 

their rights, health care rights, reproductive rights, human rights 

in our States. What we face is unprecedented cost to our health 

care system, to the providers of clinics. What would you recommend—and I understand resources may be a part of it—that the 

Federal Government to do to help those states that face this impending crisis? 

Lt. Gov. STRATTON. Thank you, Senator, for that question and let 

me begin by saying that I hope you are well and on the road to 

recovery, a full and complete recovery. This administration, the 

Biden-Harris administration, should explore all of the available 

tools at its disposal to the broadest extent that they can under the 

law to protect access to abortion. This administration must also 

challenge the Roe decision through the Department of Justice guidance and protections and through as much administrative action as 

possible. 

As you mentioned, Senator, this is a national health crisis. It is 

not going to work. We’ve seen the chaos that has happened, and 

it’s not going to work with everyone doing their own thing. People 

will die, and that is just the fact. We are seeing that already. We 

know that the action of this administration cannot be unilateral, so 

I thank you for your leadership on the Women’s Health Protection 

Act. We need to make sure that the administration works with 

Congress to pass additional abortion protections and signed—and 

get the Women’s Health Protection Act passed and signed into law, 

codifying a right to reproductive freedom, eliminate the Hyde 

Amendment restrictions, because we know that that also prevents 

people from getting access to care, and passing and signing into 

law the EACH Act to make sure health insurance will cover, 

through Federal funds, health coverage will be available. 

Then, of course, each of these laws must be implemented. It is, 

again, a call to make sure everything is done. As I mentioned in 

my remarks, which you have, my opening remarks, we’ve also 

talked about creating some sort of hub so that there can be some 

sort of coordination among States to make sure that women, that 

people, Americans are getting the health care that they deserve 

and need. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks for that answer, Governor. In the 

couple of moments I have left, let me just emphasize that we need 

a kind of reproductive rights for health care triage right now, facing a tremendous burden that States like Illinois and Connecticut, 

which provide a kind of safe harbor, will face going forward with 

our providers and clinics. Every one of the measures you’ve just 

mentioned and more need to be explored, particularly public health 

emergency declaration, which would enable more resources under 

Medicare and Medicaid to be provided, because resources will be so 

very important. I thank you for your leadership and I believe that 

women who are residents of safe harbor States like Connecticut 

will be assured by the resolve of our Governor and our legislature 
45 

that they will stay true to course. We must prepare to provide this 

essential right to women around the country who will come to our 

States, and make sure that we have the resources to fill the gap. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I thank everyone who’s been part of this, and if no other Members are seeking 

recognition, if you’ll bear with me for a point of personal privilege 

for just a few moments. 

The letters which were displayed by Senator Cruz and Senator 

Lee are not new. I’ve seen them over and over again. They are 30 

and 40 years old, and it’s true that my position on this subject did 

change, but it might be of interest to you why it changed. When 

I was a Member of the House of Representatives, there was a 

major offer to send money to Planned Parenthood for family planning and birth control that could not be used for abortion procedures. In my mind, that was sensible. Family planning and birth 

control gives to a woman and a family an option to control and 

plan their pregnancies. Isn’t that what we want? Unplanned pregnancies are what lead us, many times, to an abortion decision. 

I voted for this family planning and birth control, and the prolife group said, ‘‘That’s it. We’re never going to support you again. 

You’ve broken with us.’’ Then I started looking at this issue thinking, ‘‘If they can’t even buy birth control, how can this be a sensible 

approach?’’ I sat down. I know exactly where I was, in Quincy, Illinois, at a home for young people who were in trouble in their teens. 

I sat down with two young women who were about to turn 18, one 

a victim of incest, one a victim of rape, and they told me their stories. I didn’t ask them to, but they wanted to tell me. 

I left that meeting with a kind of understanding that I’d never 

had before about the complexity of the decision behind the abortion 

procedure many times. Some people think it’s just a simple thing 

of, ‘‘I don’t want to be bothered.’’ I think it’s much more serious, 

in most instances. I thought to myself, ‘‘As an individual Member 

of Congress, are you ready to pass a law that applies to every 

woman in America?’’ No, it really has to be her decision. We can 

regulate it as we should. But at that point I made my break, and 

I’ve run/stood for election in the House, in the Senate, many times 

since then. I’ve seen these letters before, and I’m sure I will see 

them again. 

I thank you all for being here. With the Dobbs decision, young 

Americans have been thrust into a world in which they do have 

fewer rights than their parents and grandparents. That stark reality is a condemnation of the Court’s conservative majority, and 

the extent to which they’ve shaken American people’s faith in the 

rule of law. 

To our sons and daughters across America who are fearful of the 

world that’s coming their way, Francis Bacon once said, ‘‘Truth is 

the daughter of time, not authority. Progress may not always follow 

a linear path, and while it can move at a plodding pace, in due 

time, progress and truth will arrive.’’ To quote Justices Kagan, 

Sotomayor, and Breyer’s dissent, ‘‘The Framers of the Constitution 

understood that the world changes. They defined rights and general terms to permit future evolution in their scope and meaning. 

The story of America is the story of that future evolution, and it’s 
46 

the responsibility of all lawmakers to move forward. We have a lot 

of work to do to leave Americans in the future in a better position 

than the world that we have handed them.’’ This hearing is the 

first, I think, organized serious hearing in the Senate on this subject. It won’t be the last. The conversation continues, and I thank 

all the members of the panel for joining us today. With that, the 

Senate Judiciary Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
(47) 

A P P E N D I X 

Miscellaneous submissions: 

American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Statement .......................... 110 

Howard, Representative Donna, State of Texas, July 12, 2022 ....................... 132 

NARAL Pro-Choice America Statement ............................................................. 107 

Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH), July 12, 2022 ............................... 129 

Senator Durbin Letter (submitted by Senator Lee), August 14, 1989 ............ 123 

Sussman, Dana, Testimony, July 12, 2022 ........................................................ 124 

Texas Freedom Caucus ........................................................................................ 137 

Ziegler Testimony (submitted by Senator Durbin) ........................................... 141 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 

Æ