U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57–241 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024

S. HRG. 118–465 

THE ASSAULT ON WOMEN’S FREEDOMS: 

HOW ABORTION BANS HAVE CREATED 

A HEALTH CARE NIGHTMARE 

ACROSS AMERICA 

HEARING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING WOMEN’S FREEDOMS, FOCUSING ON ACCESS TO 

ABORTIONS ACROSS AMERICA 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

BERNIE SANDERS (I), Vermont, Chairman 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

TINA SMITH, Minnesota 

BEN RAY LUJA` N, New Mexico 

JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado 

ED MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana, Ranking 

Member 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

MIKE BRAUN, Indiana 

ROGER MARSHALL, M.D., Kansas 

MITT ROMNEY, Utah 

TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

TED BUDD, North Carolina 

WARREN GUNNELS, Majority Staff Director 

BILL DAUSTER, Majority Deputy Staff Director 

AMANDA LINCOLN, Minority Staff Director 

DANIELLE JANOWSKI, Minority Deputy Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2024 

Page 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Sanders, Hon. Bernie, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions, Opening statement ...................................................................... 1 

Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from the State of Washington, Opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 2 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana, Opening statement .................................................................................. 5 

WITNESSES

Anderson, Madysyn, Abortion Patient, Houston, TX ............................................ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 11 

Verma, Nisha, M.D., MPH, Fellow, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Atlanta, GA ............................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Lopez, Destiny, MPA, Acting co-CEO, Guttmacher Institute, Washington, DC 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 18 

Linton, Allison, M.D., MPH, Chief Medical Officer, Planned Parenthood of 

Wisconsin and Fellow, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Milwaukee, WI . 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 22 

Francis, Christina, M.D., Chief Executive Officer, American Association of 

Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Fort Wayne, IN .............................. 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 36 

Ohden, Melissa, MSW, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, The Abortion 

Survivors Network, Kansas City, MO ................................................................ 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 47 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc. 

Murray, Hon. Patty: 

Clear and Growing Evidence That Dobbs Is Harming Reproductive 

Health and Freedom, Guttmacher Institute ............................................... 74 

In Our Own Voice, National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda .................................................................................................................... 79 

National Council of Jewish Women, Statement for the Record .................... 83 

National Partnership for Women & Families, Statement for the Record .... 85 

Power to Decide, Statement for the Record .................................................... 103 

Reproductive Freedom for All, Statement for the Record ............................. 106 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Statement for 

the Record ...................................................................................................... 110 
Page

IV 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill: 

Op-Ed written by Kelly Crawford, Founder & Executive Director of Abel 

Speaks ............................................................................................................ 114 
(1) 

THE ASSAULT ON WOMEN’S FREEDOMS: 

HOW ABORTION BANS HAVE CREATED 

A HEALTH CARE NIGHTMARE 

ACROSS AMERICA 

Tuesday, June 4, 2024 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 216, 

Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Bernie Sanders, Chairman of the 

Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Sanders [presiding], Murray, Casey, Baldwin, 

Murphy, Kaine, Hassan, Smith, Luja ́n, Hickenlooper, Markey, Cassidy, Murkowski, Marshall, Tuberville, Mullin, and Budd. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS 

The CHAIR. The Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor, 

and Pensions will come to order. Two years ago, six Supreme Court 

justices all nominated by Republican Presidents, decided to overturn Roe v. Wade abolish the constitutional right for women to 

have an abortion and to give politicians in state government the 

right to control the bodies of women in state after state. 

This morning, we will be holding a hearing to take a hard look 

at how this Supreme Court decision, the Dobbs decision, has impacted women, physicians, and healthcare providers throughout 

our Country. 

In a few minutes, I am going to be handing the gavel as Chair 

of the Committee to Senator Patty Murray, because given the subject matter, I think it’s appropriate for a woman to Chair this important hearing. And this is an issue that Senator Murray has 

been deeply and passionately involved in for many, many years. 

But before I hand the gavel over to Senator Murray, let me say 

a few words on a subject I feel very, very strongly about. It is no 

secret to anyone, that throughout our Country’s history, women 

have had to fight for their basic human rights against all forms of 

patriarchy and sexism, no great secret. 

Women had to struggle and some died in order to achieve the 

right to vote, something which they did not receive until 1920. 

Women had to struggle for the right to get the education that they 

wanted. All over America, women wanted to go to this school, 

wanted to do that, couldn’t get into the door, because they were 

women. 
2 

Women had to struggle to get banks to lend them the money 

they needed to buy a car or start their own business. In fact, up 

to 1974, banks in America could legally refuse to issue a credit card 

to a woman simply because she was a woman. 

Women struggled to get to choose the careers they wanted. In the 

1950’s, it was legal for employers to fire women for the crime of 

getting married, to get fired because she chose to get married. Up 

until 1964 it was legal for employers in America to reject a job applicant, simply because the applicant was a woman. 

The struggle for equal pay, for equal work, continues to this day. 

In America today, women working full-time make just 84 cents on 

the dollar compared to men. And on and on it goes, women struggling with their basic human rights. 

Then on January 22nd, 1973, after decades and decades of struggle, women in America finally won the right to control their own 

bodies, as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. 

No longer would state governments be able to tell women what 

they could or could not do with their own bodies. 

When we talk about the history of how all of these happened, 

let’s not ignore the lack of political representation that women had. 

In 1987, not so many, many years ago, there were 2 women in 

the U.S. Senate and 98 men. Those are the folks all over this country who are making the decision. The truth is that men would not 

tolerate them being subject to government decisions regarding how 

they can control their own bodies. 

I am not aware of any state in this country that has ever restricted the right of a man to get Viagra or any other medication 

prescribed by a doctor. I’m not aware of any state in this country 

that has prevented a man from getting a vasectomy or any other 

medical procedure that men choose to get that has been approved 

by a doctor. 

We hear a lot of talk about freedom in this body, freedom to do 

what you want to do, and yet right now we are living at a time 

when half of our population or more has lost that freedom. 

By the way, when I talk about the right of women to be able to 

control their own bodies, it’s not just me talking, it’s what the 

American people believe, in poll after poll, in state election, after 

state election. 

People are saying, we may disagree politically, we may disagree 

on this or that issue, but very strongly, the American people believe it is women, not the government that has a right to control 

their own body. 

Senator Murray, the gavel is yours. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY 

Senator MURRAY. [Presiding.] Chairman Sanders, thank you so 

much for your statement, and thank you for letting me Chair today’s hearing on a topic that is deeply important to me. And I want 

to thank all of our witnesses for joining us here today. 

Today, we take a close accounting of the trauma Republicans are 

inflicting on women and families across our Country, and the dam-
3 

age they are doing to basic reproductive healthcare through their 

horrific anti-abortion crusade. The issue here is simple and it cuts 

to the core of American values. Freedom. 

Many women every day experience the joy of becoming pregnant 

and raising a family. They were able to make that decision for 

themselves, but no woman, no one should be dragged through a 

pregnancy against their will. 

But right now, in America, more than a third of women of reproductive age live in states where they essentially do not have the 

choice to end a pregnancy if they need to. 

Instead, Republicans have made the choice for them, with extreme abortion bans and cruel restrictions on access to care. With 

these policies, they have told women in no uncertain terms, you 

don’t control your body, we do. That is horrifying. Think about 

what it means, what it really means to be told someone else can 

decide you have to stay pregnant no matter the circumstances. 

Think about how little power that gives a woman over her own 

life and her own health. And think about how much power that 

gives, not just politicians, but any man who knows he can get a 

woman pregnant, force her to stay pregnant so he can have control 

over her or even get revenge for the rest of her life. 

To every Republican who hopes this issue will go away or is hoping the post Dobbs reality will become settled, status quo. Listen, 

you never forget and you never just get used to someone else taking control of your body, your medical decisions, your plans for your 

family or your future. 

You never forget a politician rescinding your right to make decisions about something as personal as your own pregnancy, and imposing his will instead, especially when you live with the consequences every day. And the consequences of the post Dobbs abortion bans are so much broader and so much more devastating than 

any one story or hearing can ever do justice. 

There are stories that get a lot of attention that are shocking almost beyond belief. Stories of women denied care for a miscarriage 

because of abortion bans. Women turned away from hospitals because their doctor’s hands were tied until they lost over half of 

their blood, until their husband found them unconscious, until the 

only option was an emergency hysterectomy or tragically until it 

was simply too late. 

Or stories of children, who can’t get abortion care after being 

raped. Some kids may be able to get across state lines to get the 

care they need. Other children have been forced into motherhood 

by Republican politicians. One teenager delivered a baby while 

clutching a teddy bear. 

These nightmares are happening across our Country as a direct 

result of Republican abortion bans. And there are so many other 

stories that go untold. 

Women who do not want to be pregnant for whatever reason, 

maybe they can’t afford to have another child right now. Maybe 

they are in an abusive relationship, maybe they just don’t want a 

kid right now, period. But they are told by politicians, they have 

no say in the matter, not unless they have the time and resources, 
4 

often thousands of dollars to travel in some cases, hundreds, and 

hundreds of miles. 

It is harrowing to think that we live in a reality where forced 

pregnancy has become so widespread and so rampant that only the 

most dystopian stories get national attention. But the stories of all 

the other women who were confronted by these bans, their pain, 

their heartbreak, their anger, and fears are also horrific, valid and 

an important part of the conversation. A forced pregnancy does not 

have to make headlines to make someone’s life a living hell. 

Let’s be clear about a few more things before we get started. Republican attacks are not only hurting people in the states where 

they banned abortion. They’re not only hurting women who need 

an abortion, and their attacks on our rights are not stopping at an 

abortion. 

When it comes to states like mine where abortion is legal, providers are being stretched beyond capacity by women in desperate 

need of abortion care they can no longer get at their home. 

When it comes to women who aren’t even seeking an abortion, 

bans are hollowing out healthcare for women in general, especially 

for those who already face some of the biggest challenges getting 

care. 

Women of color, Indigenous women, those in rural communities, 

because in a surprise to no one, healthcare providers do not want 

to work in states where politicians get between a doctor and their 

patient and threaten providers with jail time, and the loss of their 

medical license if they dare to help patients get the care they need. 

In states with extreme abortion bans, we are seeing healthcare 

providers closing their doors and shutting down their practices, 

new doctors staying away, and fewer options for patients to get a 

whole range of necessary healthcare services. The consequences extend far beyond abortion. And when it comes to what is next, well, 

Republicans have already made it painfully clear they want a national abortion plan. 

No matter what they’re saying now, we can just look at the 

record. Look at how many Republicans have co-sponsored national 

abortion bans. Look at the Life at Conception Act. That is a bill 

that is supported by more than half of the House Republican Conference that would enshrine fetal personhood nationwide. 

Let’s be clear what that would mean. Not just an abortion ban. 

It would mean that women and doctors will be charged with murder for an abortion making them eligible for the death penalty in 

their states. It would mean emergency contraception like Plan B, 

outlawed. And it would mean IVF ripped away from people who are 

trying to start a family. 

This is not theoretical. We saw how much chaos this dangerously 

extreme ideology already caused for families in Alabama. And yet 

there are Republican states and Republican Members of Congress, 

including the Speaker of the House, who support making fetal 

personhood the law of the land. That is in the extreme, but in the 

face of all this horror, we’ve also seen an outcry from women and 

men who refuse to let Republicans keep dragging our Nation backward and stripping away our basic rights. 
5 

Every time abortion rights have been on the ballot, since Dobbs, every single time, abortion rights have won. People are standing up 

and they’re speaking out and Democrats are proud to stand with 

them. 

Democrats are going to make sure women’s voices are heard in 

our Nation’s capital, including at hearings like this one. And we’re 

going to keep fighting to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act 

and restore the basic and fundamental right of women to control 

their own bodies. 

While former President Trump continues to brag about how he 

overturned Roe, and makes clear he will go even farther to restrict 

and ban abortion if given the chance, Democrats have been clear. 

With a pro-choice majority in the House and Senate and Joe Biden 

in the White House, we will restore and protect abortion rights for 

every woman in America. Thank you. 

With that I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses, but 

first, I will turn it over to Senator Cassidy for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASSIDY 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you, Senator Murray. 

Let’s table-set. It’s an election year in which a Democratic incumbent President is running behind. So, a decision has been made to 

raise abortion to a high profile to change the setting, to invite a 

lot of folks to put us on TV. It’s partisan politics being played out 

in a Committee hearing, but let me point out as well, it’s not entirely partisan. 

Louisiana’s pro-life law was written by a female Democratic 

State Senator and written and signed into law by a Democratic 

Governor. And that female Democratic state senator was reelected 

with wide margins. So, there is a breadth across the political spectrum of people who have a different way of framing this. 

My Democratic colleagues want you to think that Republicans 

believe terrible things, they’ll attempt to normalize a decision to 

abort a child. But a Republican would say that you can’t normalize 

a procedure, at least this Republican, in which the intent is to end 

a life. Don’t be misled. This is a life. This is a life because can anyone say that child is not a life. How could you not? 

I’m a doctor. I see that you have to take care of that mama. You 

have to take care of that mama, but you have to recognize that 

there is another life there as well. This is not just a collection of 

cells. This is a child that if delivered will live, and maybe this one 

too, and that one as well. So, let’s have a national dialog. Let’s actually explore this as opposed to exploit it for political advantage. 

In medical school, I was taught, to care for every patient who 

walks in the door, and to recognize that when a woman is pregnant, there are two patients there. 

The second that baby gets there, it doesn’t matter how small and 

how vulnerable, how unsustainable, how weak. The doctors, the 

nurses, the institution does everything they can to save their life. 

And by golly, don’t you want them to do that? Don’t you want the 

people who are entrusted with the healthcare to have that ethic? 
6 

I believe that the responsibility to protect and say the child 

shouldn’t be determined by the arbitrary difference of being inside 

or outside the womb. I’m unapologetically pro-life. Scientifically 

and morally, there’s no difference in the value of a child, whether 

she is in her mother’s arms or whether she is in her mother’s 

womb. 

The science is clear. This is just not a clump of cells and this is 

a difficult poster to look at. I can tell you it’s difficult. The reason 

it’s difficult is because you recognize, that by their policies, it 

should be legal to abort that child. It is difficult, but let’s frame it 

for what it is. How can we dehumanize this? And yet this is what 

it’s an attempt to do. At what point do my Democratic colleagues 

believe that a child deserves to live? 

It does a disservice to the mother to dehumanize the unborn 

child and discuss this issue as only the right to abort or not to 

abort. This is one of the most significant decisions a woman will 

ever make. We should not trivialize. 

Now I understand and accept the need for exceptions, the laws 

that regulate abortion under certain circumstances. But unlike 

some of our testimony here, terminating life does not spare a 

woman from potential grief. This should never be an easy decision, 

if so, we’ve lost our moral compass. 

I just want people to read the entire testimony of Dr. Francis in 

which she refutes a lot of what was said, kind of blithely, and she 

actually puts scientific data behind it. 

As a physician, fear mongering, I find it infuriating. A woman 

experiencing, the emotionally and physically painful experience of 

miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy is already grappling with a 

loss of our unborn child, and yet this Committee hearing would 

take this vulnerable moment of that woman’s life and misrepresented, and use it for political gain. 

There is no law in any state preventing a doctor from treating 

a patient going through a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy or 

from preventing the saving of the life of a mother. That is called 

healthcare. That is not an abortion. 

One of the most inspirational medical professors said, that in 

healthcare and medicine, our highest calling is truth. And frankly, 

that’s why I find it frustrating that fellow physicians are misleading on these facts and corrupting truth for political viewpoint. 

While it’s disappointing that my colleagues would say things that 

are not true, deceiving Americans about Republicans stand on the 

issue is also reprehensible that they mislead Americans on the 

Democrats own extreme views. 

Now, Democrats will say that they want to codify Roe v. Wade. 

That’s not true. The truth is, is that the democratic policies go beyond Roe. Their marquee legislation will legalize late term abortion 

and every state aborting this child, ban states that prevent coerced 

abortion, allow strangers to convince an underage child to get an 

abortion without notifying the parents that she is pregnant. 

Perhaps that pregnancy was due to abuse, shouldn’t the parents 

know? Why should the parents’ rights be obligated and eviscerate 

the conscience rights of healthcare professionals who have moral or 
7 

religious objections to abortion? Speak about driving people out of 

the healthcare field. 

Now, Senator Kaine has a bill that explicitly codifies Roe into 

law. The only Democrats willing to co-sponsor are Senator Sinema 

and Manchin, neither one of whom call themselves Democrats by 

now. So, it begs the question, why does Senator Kaine bill to codify 

Roe not have more Democratic support? Well, it makes a good rallying cry, the policy of codifying Roe is too conservative for the 

fringes that now define the debate in the Democratic party. 

There are nine states plus Washington DC, whose laws right now 

allow, allow for abortion up to parturition. The child can be ready 

to go through the birth canal and abortion is legalized. Not because 

of the life of the mother, just to legalize it. That is where the 

Democratic party has gone. That should give us all a moral pause. 

Now I ask my Democratic colleagues, can you designate a point 

at which a pregnancy should not be terminated unless for the life 

of the mother or instead of some extenuating circumstances? Can 

you tell me if it’s here or here or here? I think that’s a fair question. I invite everybody to be a doctor who’s trying to balance the 

needs of the unborn child with that of the mom. 

My Democratic colleagues may also claim that abortions are low 

risk procedures, claiming that they’re so safe, they can be done 

without medical supervision. Not entirely accurate, minimizing the 

potential complications. But that’s the way you can kind of feel better about this. And again, I refer people once more to Dr. Francis’ 

complete testimony, not just the 5-minutes she’ll give today. 

Now, demagoguing and fear mongering on access to treatment 

for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies, cast in a decision to abort 

or not to abort as an easy one, is a tremendous disservice. I have 

supported postpartum coverage for women in Medicaid. I’ve worked 

on serious legislation to advance maternal health like the Connected Moms Act with Senator Maggie Hassen, which lets physicians remotely monitor pregnant women for potential complications. 

From my practice in Louisiana, a woman who’s eight and a half 

months pregnant, using public transportation in August in Louisiana, you can empathize for her and understand that if you can 

remotely monitor her, her life is so much better. Senator Bob Casey 

and I led legislation now law to ensure that pregnant women are 

entitled to reasonable accommodations in the workforce. 

There is much more we can do to support the woman who’s pregnant, but we should debate and advance legislation so that we are 

not leaving them without solutions when they’re faced with a very 

difficult, traumatic, and complex question. 

We want women, moms to be healthy, successful, and prosperous. And the human life inside a woman triggers the double 

line—the human life, do a pregnancy test, those double lines come 

up. Those double lines should not represent a burden as the other 

side would like to cast. It should represent a gift, but there’s things 

that we can do to make her life easier. 

I’m open to the tough conversations. I think we should all be, but 

we shouldn’t minimize by dehumanizing. And it must be with re-
8 

spect for both the mother and the defenseless and voiceless unborn 

child that are participating in that debate. This is too personal for 

too many Americans. 

With that I yield. 

Senator MURRAY. We will now introduce today’s witnesses and 

move to testimony. Today, we’ll be hearing from Madysyn Anderson. She’s a young woman from Texas who was forced to leave her 

state and travel hundreds of miles to get the abortion care she 

needed after Texas passed its draconian abortion ban. 

Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN, an abortion provider in Georgia, 

and a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. Destiny 

Lopez, acting CEO of the Guttmacher Institute. And Dr. Allison 

Linton, Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. 

She’s also an OB-GYN, an abortion provider, and a fellow with 

Physicians for Reproductive Health. I will turn it over to Ranking 

Member Cassidy to introduce his witnesses. 

Senator CASSIDY. Yes, I introduce Dr. Christina Francis. She is 

a board-certified OB-GYN, working as OB-GYN hospitalist, treating women with both high and low risk pregnancies who are hospitalized. She is a board member of Indiana Right to Life. And she 

is the CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians 

and Gynecologists. 

I’ll also introduce Ms. Melissa Ohden. I have that right, Ohden? 

Yes, who was the founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Abortion Survivors Network. Melissa will tell us of her story about surviving a failed saline infusion abortion in 1977 that was intended 

to end her life. We’re fortunate that Melissa has made this her 

life’s work and runs the Abortion Survivors Network, a group providing support to other abortion survivors and mothers who have 

experienced a failed abortion. I look forward to hearing from you 

today, Melissa, and thank you for sharing your powerful story. 

Senator MURRAY. Again, thank you to all of our witnesses. We 

will begin with Ms. Anderson. 

STATEMENT OF MADYSYN ANDERSON, ABORTION PATIENT, 

HOUSTON, TX 

Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator Chair Sanders, Senator Murray, Ranking Member Cassidy, and Members of the Committee. My 

name is Madysyn Anderson, and I live in Houston, Texas. 

Two years ago, during my senior year at the University of Houston, I had just come out of a 2-year long relationship. After a couple weeks of nausea, not sleeping or eating, I took a pregnancy 

test. I called a friend to bring me more tests because I was in disbelief. At one point. I had five tests in front of me and there was 

no disputing I was pregnant. 

This was just 2 weeks after the Texas abortion ban, known as 

S.B 8, went into effect banning abortion after 6 weeks. I knew almost immediately that abortion was the right choice for me. I 

called and got an appointment at the local Planned Parenthood just 

5 minutes away from me for later that week. I thought I was early 

enough to be able to get my abortion that week, but at my appointment, my pregnancy measured 11 weeks. 
9 

I was shocked, I couldn’t get an abortion in Texas. I called 20 different clinics after my first visit. Yes, 20 I called surrounding 

states and even as far as the Dakotas, no one could see me right 

away. The earliest I could be seen was 2 weeks later at Jackson 

Women’s Health Organization in Mississippi. This was before the 

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision that would take away 

the Federal constitutional right for abortion, and before 20 more 

states would ban abortion, and before wait times and states that 

didn’t have bans would stretch longer and longer. 

My dad took off work, and we drove a total of 720 miles roundtrip, and spent 13 hours on the road. We spent 5 hours in a hotel 

trying to sleep before my first appointment just to turn right 

around and go back home. 

Here’s the thing. Because of unnecessary restrictions on abortion 

care in Mississippi, I would have to make the trip all over again. 

The state essentially puts patients in a timeout because they don’t 

trust people to know what is best for their health or lives. When 

I got this news, I was angry, and sleep deprived, and starving, and 

never more certain of my decision. That certainty never faltered. 

The following week, my mom was able to find us affordable tickets, and we flew out to Jackson. The start of our day was at 7am 

to make it to my 1.30pm appointment. After my procedure, I went 

in the recovery room for about 20 minutes before having to hop in 

the car and make my flight back home. 

I want to talk for a minute about money. As a college student 

who took out multiple student loans and was counting every penny 

I had to pay for my first appointment in Houston, my first appointment in Mississippi, and the abortion itself. Then gas and a hotel 

for the first trip. And then flights for the second trip. I missed 20 

hours each of work and a mandatory internship for my school, a 

total $2,850. 

There is no dollar value I can put on the stress of managing everything. The despair of having to go to such lengths for basic 

healthcare that was legal just weeks before I needed it. 

The gut-wrenching reality of having to disclose something so personal to my boss, professors, and anyone in a position of authority 

for fear of losing my job, of failing every class that semester due 

to all of the class time and assignments that I was forced to miss. 

I felt so much anger that the politicians in Austin thought that 

they had the right to make this decision for me. I’m one of thousands of people that have now gone through this. Every day that 

we go without the right for abortion, there will be more of us. More 

savings accounts drained, more classes and shifts missed, more 

choices on which bills to skip paying. 

If I had found out I was pregnant last year or last month, Jackson Women’s Health would not have been there for me. The people 

who cared for me that day cannot care for abortion patients today. 

I have to go to New Mexico, Kansas, or as far as Illinois to make 

that decision. 

Today, we talk about abortion and it is easy to get stuck in 

theoreticals, but I am a real person. The lives of abortion patients 

are not theoretical. People will continue to get pregnant when 
10 

they’re not ready or just simply don’t want to be. We will always 

need abortions. This is simply no place for a politician to decide for 

us. Thank you for inviting me here today and letting me share my 

story with you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MADYSYN ANDERSON

Chair Sanders, Senator Murray, Ranking Member Cassidy, Members of the Committee: 

My name is Mady Anderson, and I live in Houston, Texas. 

Two years ago, during my senior year at the University of Houston, I had just 

come out of a 2-year relationship. After a couple weeks of nausea and not sleeping 

or eating, I took a pregnancy test. 

I called my friends to bring me more tests because I was in disbelief. At one point 

I had five positive tests in front of me. 

I was pregnant. 

This was just 2 weeks after Texas’s abortion ban, known as S.B. 8, went into effect, banning abortion after 6 weeks. 

I knew almost immediately that abortion was the right decision for me. 

I called and got an appointment for the following week at my local Planned Parenthood, 5 minutes away. I thought I was early enough to be able to get my abortion 

that week. But at my appointment my pregnancy measured at 11 weeks. 

I was shocked. I couldn’t get an abortion in Texas. 

I called 20 different clinics after that first visit. Yes, you heard correct. 20. 

I called surrounding states and even as far as the Dakotas; no one could see me 

right away. The earliest I could be seen was 2 weeks later, at Jackson Women’s 

Health Organization in Mississippi. 

This was before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision that would take 

away the Federal constitutional right to abortion. Before 20 more states would ban 

abortion. Before wait times in states without bans grew longer and longer. 

My dad took off from work, and we drove a total of 720 miles roundtrip, and spent 

13 hours on the road. We spent 5 hours in a hotel trying to sleep, before going to 

my first appointment—just to turn right around and head back home. 

Here’s the thing: Because of medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion care 

in Mississippi, I would have to make the trip all over again. The state, essentially, 

put patients in a time-out because they don’t trust people to know what is best for 

our own health and lives. When I got this news, I was angry, sleep-deprived, and 

starving—and as certain as I ever was that I wanted an abortion. That certainty 

never faltered. 

The following week my mom was able to find us affordable tickets, and we flew 

back to Jackson. We started our day at 7 a.m. for my 1:30 p.m. appointment. After 

my procedure, I waited in the recovery room for about 20 minutes, before hopping 

in a car to make my flight back home. 

I want to talk for a moment about money. As a college student who took out multiple student loans, I was counting every penny. 

• I had to pay for the appointment in Houston. 

• Then gas and hotel for the first trip to Mississippi. 

• Then the first appointment in Mississippi. 

• Then plane tickets for the second trip to Mississippi. 

• Then the abortion itself. 

• Then I missed 20 hours of work. 

• And 20 hours of my mandatory internship program. 

• The total? $2,850. 

There is no dollar value I can put on the stress of managing all of this. The despair of having to go to such lengths for basic, safe health care that was legal just 

weeks before I needed it. The gut-wrenching reality of having to disclose this deeply 

personal thing that should be private to professors, my boss, and anyone else in a 

position of authority over me for fear of not only losing my job but also failing out 

of all my classes due to all the classes and assignments I missed. 
11 

I felt so much anger that politicians in Austin thought they had the right to make 

this decision for me. 

I am one of thousands of people who have now gone through this. Every day, 

every month we go without a Federal right to abortion, there will be more of us. 

More savings accounts drained, more classes and shifts missed, more choices about 

which bill to skip paying. 

If I had found out I was pregnant last year or last month, Jackson Women’s 

Health wouldn’t have been there for me. The people who cared for me that day cannot care for abortion patients in Mississippi. I would have had to go to New Mexico, 

Kansas, or as far as Illinois. 

When we talk about abortion, it’s easy to get stuck talking in theoreticals. 

But I am a real person. 

The lives of abortion patients are not theoretical. People will continue to get pregnant when we don’t want to be. We will always need abortions. 

There is simply no place for politicians to decide for us. 

Thank you for inviting me here today and letting me share my story. 

[SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MADYSYN ANDERSON]

My name is Mady Anderson, and I live in Houston, Texas. Two years ago, during 

my senior year at the University of Houston, I had just come out of a 2-year relationship. After a couple weeks of nausea and not sleeping or eating, I took a pregnancy test. I was pregnant. 

This was just 2 weeks after Texas’s abortion ban, known as S.B. 8, went into effect, banning abortion after 6 weeks. 

I knew almost immediately that abortion was the right decision for me. I called 

and got an appointment for the following week at my local Planned Parenthood, 5 

minutes away. I thought I was early enough to be able to get my abortion that 

week. But at my appointment my pregnancy measured at 11 weeks. I couldn’t get 

an abortion in Texas. 

The earliest I could be seen was 2 weeks later, at Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Mississippi. This was before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision that would take away the Federal constitutional right to abortion. Before 20 

more states would ban abortion. 

My dad took off from work, and we drove a total of 720 miles roundtrip, and spent 

13 hours on the road. Because of medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion care 

in Mississippi, I would have to make the trip all over again. 

The following week my mom was able to find us affordable tickets, and we flew 

back to Jackson. We started our day at 7 a.m. for my 1:30 p.m. appointment. After 

my procedure, I waited in the recovery room for about 20 minutes, before hopping 

in a car to make my flight back home. 

As a college student who took out multiple student loans, I was counting every 

penny. I had to pay for the appointment in Houston. Then gas and hotel for the 

first trip to Mississippi. Then the first appointment in Mississippi. Then plane tickets for the second trip to Mississippi. Then the abortion itself. Then I missed 20 

hours of work. And 20 hours of my mandatory internship program. The total? 

$2,850. There is no dollar value I can put on the stress of managing all of this. 

I am one of thousands of people who have now gone through this. Every day, 

every month we go without a Federal right to abortion, there will be more of us. 

More savings accounts drained, more classes and shifts missed, more choices about 

which bill to skip paying. The lives of abortion patients are not theoretical. People 

will continue to get pregnant when we don’t want to be. We will always need abortions. There is simply no place for politicians to decide for us. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Verma. 

STATEMENT OF NISHA VERMA, M.D., MPH, FELLOW, 

PHYSICIANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, ATLANTA, GA 

Dr. VERMA. Good morning, Chair Sanders, Senator Murray, 

Ranking Member Cassidy, and distinguished Members of the Sen-
12 

ate HELP Committee. My name is Dr. Nisha Verma, and I’m a 

board-certified, fellowship-trained obstetrician and gynecologist, 

providing full spectrum reproductive healthcare. I’m a fellow with 

Physicians for Reproductive Health, and I’m also a proud Southerner. 

I was born and raised in North Carolina. I currently provide care 

in Georgia, and I’ve lived in the southeast for most of my life. I 

made a commitment when I became a doctor to care for people 

without judgment throughout their lives. For me, that commitment 

holds whether I’m talking a young person through a first pap 

smear, delivering a couple’s highly anticipated third child, or supporting a patient and her family as they decide to continue or end 

a pregnancy. 

However, after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, with Georgia 

enacting a law that bans most abortions in our state very early in 

pregnancy, I struggle every day to provide necessary lifesaving 

medical care. I’ve seen young moms with worsening medical conditions that make their pregnancies very high risk, and couples 

whose deeply desired pregnancies are in the process of miscarrying, 

be turned away or forced to leave their communities to access needed healthcare. 

As a doctor, I have the immense privilege of sitting with patients 

and learning about their lives. For me, these patient stories are a 

powerful reminder that abortion is not an isolated political issue, 

and today I want to provide a glimpse of what access to abortion 

care means for real people. 

Shortly after Georgia’s 6-week abortion ban went into effect in 

2022, I saw a young woman who had just started her junior year 

of high school, and despite using her birth control correctly, realized after missing her period that she might be pregnant. 

She called to make a clinic appointment for an abortion right 

away, but when she came to see me, she unfortunately was just a 

couple days past George’s arbitrary cutoff, which bans most abortions after just 2 weeks from the first missed period. 

I had to tell her that even though I have the skills to help her, 

I can no longer perform her abortion in our state. She returned to 

rural Georgia where she lives and I didn’t see her again until a few 

weeks ago. At our most recent visit, she told me that she was unable to find the resources and support to get out of state for abortion care. 

She also couldn’t find a doctor in her part of the state that took 

her insurance Medicaid for many months, and so even though she 

was forced to continue her pregnancy against her will, she couldn’t 

get prenatal care. After delivering her baby, she struggled with 

postpartum depression and had to move out of her home, drop out 

of school and work a minimum wage job to try to make ends meet. 

She told me that she loves her son, but this is not the life she 

wanted or planned for herself. I have thought about this patient 

every day since she came back to my clinic. I know it was Georgia’s 

laws that prevented me from providing her with the medical care 

she needed and deserved, but I still feel like as her doctor, I failed 

her. 
13 

This patient’s story, while heartbreaking, is not unique. We know 

that bans and restrictions have forced many people to stay pregnant, and we know the harm that people experience when they’re 

unable to get this care. They’re more likely to face long-lasting economic hardship, to stay in contact with a violent partner and to develop serious health problems. 

Mental health conditions like the postpartum depression that my 

patient experienced, are the leading cause of pregnancy related 

deaths in this country. 

We also know that abortion care is incredibly safe. In fact, in 

2022, over 75 major professional societies representing the overwhelming consensus of the science-based medical community came 

together to reaffirm that abortion is safe, essential healthcare. 

As patients face a growing wave of abortion restrictions, many 

describe feeling betrayed by a government and healthcare system 

that is supposed to serve and protect them. Doctors too feel betrayed by our government. Many of my colleagues are overwhelmed 

by laws that threaten to make us criminals for providing evidencebased, life-saving care to our patients, and are leaving their states. 

And places like Georgia, where already over 50 percent of counties 

have no OB-GYNs, these worsening workforce shortages are devastating for all aspects of reproductive healthcare. 

I understand that abortion care can be a complicated issue for 

many people, just like so many aspects of healthcare and life can 

be. I also know that abortion is necessary compassionate essential 

healthcare, and that patients are capable of making complex, 

thoughtful decisions about their health and lives. No law should 

prevent them from doing so. 

I urge you to listen to the stories of people who provide and access abortion care. I hope these stories help you to see how profoundly restrictions on abortion access harm all of our communities. Thank you for having me today and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Verma follows.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NISHA VERMA

Good morning Chair Sanders, Senator Murray, Ranking Member Cassidy, and 

distinguished Members of the Senate HELP Committee. My name is Dr. Nisha 

Verma, I use she/her pronouns, and I am a board-certified, fellowship trained, obstetrician and gynecologist providing full-spectrum reproductive health care. I am a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health, and I am also a proud Southerner— 

I was born and raised in North Carolina, I currently provide care in Georgia, and 

I have lived in the Southeast for most of my life. 

I made a commitment when I became a doctor to care for people, without judgment, throughout their lives. For me, that commitment holds whether I am talking 

a young person through a first pap smear, delivering a couple’s highly anticipated 

third child, or supporting a patient and her family as they decide to continue or end 

a pregnancy. However, after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, with Georgia enacting a law that bans most abortions in our state very early in pregnancy, I struggle every day to provide necessary, life-saving medical care. I’ve seen young moms 

with worsening medical conditions that make their pregnancies very high risk and 

couples whose deeply desired pregnancies are in the process of miscarrying, be 

turned away or forced to leave their communities to access needed health care. 

As a doctor, I have the immense privilege of sitting with patients and learning 

about their lives. For me, these patients’ stories are a powerful reminder that abortion is not an isolated political issue, and today, I want to provide a glimpse of what 

access to abortion care means for real people. 
14 

1 See #WeCount Report, SOC. OF FAM. PLANNING (May 14, 2024), https://societyfp.org/ 

wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WeCount-report-6-May-2024-Dec-2023-data-Final.pdf. 2 See See Diana Greene Foster, Turnaway Study: Ten Years, A Thousand Women, and the 

Consequences of Having or Being Denied an Abortion, ANSIRH (2020), https://www.ansirh.org/ 

research/turnaway-study. 3 More than 75 Health Care Organizations Release Joint Statement in Opposition to Legislative Interference, AM. COLL. OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS (July 7, 2022), 

https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2022/07/more-than75-health-care-organizations-release-joint-statement-in-opposition-to-legislative-interference. 4 See Stephanie Colombini, Turning Away Patients Every Day: Georgia OB-GYN on the Effects 

of Abortion Bans, HEALTH NEWS FL (May 16, 2024), https://health.wusf.usf.edu/health-newsflorida/20240516/turning-away-patients-every-day-georgia-ob-gyn-on-the-effects-of-abortion-bans; 

Adrienne D. Zertuche, Georgia’s Obstetric Crisis: Origins, Consequences, and Potential Solutions, GA. SENATE STUDY CMTE ON WOMEN’S ADEQUATE HEALTHCARE (Oct. 26, 2015), 

https://www.senate.ga.gov/committees/Documents/ 

Oct%2026%20Ga%20Maternal%20Health%20%20Infant%20Research%20Group%20- 

%20Dr%20Zertuche.pdf. 

Shortly after Georgia’s 6-week abortion ban went into effect in 2022, I saw a 

young woman who had just started her junior year of high school, and despite using 

her birth control correctly, realized after missing her period that she might be pregnant. She called to make a clinic appointment for an abortion right away, but when 

she came to see me, she unfortunately was just a couple days past Georgia’s arbitrary cutoff, which bans most abortions after just 2 weeks from the first missed period. I had to tell her that, even though I have the skills to help her, I could no 

longer perform her abortion in our state. She returned to rural Georgia, where she 

lives, and I didn’t see her again until a few weeks ago. At our most recent visit, 

she told me that she was unable to find the resources and support to get out of state 

for abortion care. She also couldn’t find a doctor in her part of the state that took 

her insurance, Medicaid, for many months, and so even though she was forced to 

continue her pregnancy against her will, she couldn’t get prenatal care. After delivering her baby, she struggled with postpartum depression and had to move-out of 

her home, drop out of school, and work a minimum wage job to try to make ends 

meet. She told me that she loves her son, but this is not the life she wanted or 

planned for herself. 

I have thought about this patient every day since she came back to my clinic. I 

know it was Georgia’s laws that prevented me from providing her with the medical 

care she needed and deserved, but I still feel like, as her doctor, I failed her. 

This patient’s story, while heartbreaking, is not unique. We know that bans and 

restrictions have forced many people to stay pregnant. 1 And we know the harm that 

people experience when they are unable to get this care—they are more likely to 

face long-lasting economic hardship, to stay in contact with a violent partner, and 

to develop serious health problems. 2 Mental health conditions, like the postpartum 

depression my patient experienced, are the leading cause of pregnancy-related 

deaths in this country. We also know that abortion care is incredibly safe—in fact, 

in 2022, over 75 major professional societies representing the overwhelming consensus of the science-based medical community, came together to reaffirm that abortion is safe, essential health care. 3

As patients face a growing wave of abortion restrictions, many describe feeling betrayed by a government and health care system that is supposed to serve and protect them. Doctors, too, feel betrayed by our government. Many of my colleagues, 

overwhelmed by laws that threaten to make us criminals for providing evidencebased, life-saving care to our patients, are leaving their states. In places like Georgia, where already over 50 percent of counties have no OB/GYNs, these worsening 

workforce shortages are devastating for all aspects of reproductive health care. 4

I understand that abortion care can be a complicated issue for many people, just 

like so many aspects of health care and life can be. I also know that abortion is 

necessary, compassionate, essential health care, and that patients are capable of 

making complex, thoughtful decisions about their health and lives—no law should 

prevent them from doing so. 

I am unwavering in my commitment to support people in my home in the South. 

It shouldn’t have to be this way. I urge you to listen to the stories of people who 

provide and access abortion care. I hope these stories help you to see how profoundly restrictions on abortion access harm all of our communities. 

Thank you for having me today, I look forward to your questions. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 
15 

Ms. Lopez. 

STATEMENT OF DESTINY LOPEZ, MPA, ACTING CO-CEO 

GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. LOPEZ. Thank you, Chair Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy, Senator Murray, and the distinguished Members of the Committee for the opportunity to highlight the clear and growing evidence that the Dobbs decision is harming reproductive health and 

freedom. 

My name is Destiny Lopez, and I am the acting co-CEO of the 

Guttmacher Institute, a leading research and policy organization 

committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights 

worldwide. 

For decades following the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, anti-abortion advocates worked strategically to make abortion harder to get 

and highly stigmatized. Public support for abortion’s legality has 

remained high and consistent. But the sheer number of state-level 

abortion restrictions ensured that abortion became inaccessible for 

many, even with Roe in place. 

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision was 

an inflection point, unleashing chaos and fear across the Nation. 

Our experts are constantly assessing this changing landscape and 

the increasingly robust body of evidence that illustrates the harms 

caused and exacerbated by Dobbs decision. 

Two years after the decision, here is what we know: Access to 

abortion care is severely restricted in many parts of the country. 

14 states are now enforcing total abortion bans with very limited 

exceptions, and many more have other new restrictions in place. 

The total number of brick-and-mortar clinics providing abortion 

care in the U.S. declined by more than 40 between 2020 and early 

2024. 

Banning abortion does not stop the need for abortion access. 

Which is why many people seeking abortions post-Dobbs must overcome huge financial and logistical barriers to get care, especially 

those in states with total or early gestational bans. 

The number of Americans traveling out of state for abortions 

doubled from 81,000 in 2020 to more than 170,000 in 2023. States 

that border states with total abortion bans saw the sharpest increases in out-of-state patients. 

No one should have to travel to another state to access basic 

healthcare. And in fact, those who can’t overcome the burdens of 

traveling for care, which for some might mean crossing multiple 

state lines, may be forced to stay pregnant against their will. Others may decide to self-manage their abortion. 

Decades of research have documented that the majority of people 

obtaining abortions have few financial resources, are people of 

color, and are already parenting. They are the ones most harshly 

impacted by bans and restrictions. 

We also know that providers are resilient and adapting to meet 

patient needs. While brick-and mortar facilities provide more than 

three-quarters of all abortions, online clinics are expanding care options by offering medication abortion services via telehealth. Re-
16 

search by the Society for Family Planning shows that virtual-only 

telehealth abortions accounted for almost one in five abortions from 

October to December 2023. 

There are many other important ways Dobbs is interfering with 

reproductive health care across the Nation that I don’t have time 

to discuss in detail today, from current and future OB-GYNs not 

wanting to practice in ban states to impacts on maternal health 

and people facing obstetric emergencies. 

What does all this mean? Overturning Roe did not resolve the debates on abortion that have characterized U.S. politics for the past 

50 years. Instead, it enabled policies that have significantly worsened the harms faced by individuals who are most marginalized in 

our health care system. 

Still, despite these immense hardships and many people being 

denied care, there were more than one million clinician-provided 

abortions in 2023, a 10 percent increase from 2020. This is a testament to the heroic efforts of providers, abortion funds and other 

support networks, to the resilience and determination of people 

seeking care, and to the centrality of abortion in peoples’ lives. And 

it explains why the anti-abortion movement and their political allies are doubling down on even more repressive policies. 

For instance, this year, four states introduced legislation and one 

passed a law criminalizing adults who support adolescents seeking 

abortion care in another state. Earlier in the year, the Alabama 

Supreme Court’s decision to classify frozen embryos as ‘‘children’’, 

wreaked havoc on fertility treatment services while advancing the 

anti-abortion movement’s long-term goal to enshrine fetal 

personhood in both law and policy. 

These attacks on bodily autonomy, coupled with two major abortion cases currently before the Supreme Court, signal that the policy and legal landscape will continue to shift. 

The full damage caused by Dobbs will not be clear for years to 

come, but the evidence suggests it will not be easy to repair. That’s 

why it is imperative that policymakers at all levels of government 

champion a bold vision of abortion care that goes beyond what Roe 

promised. 

Only policies rooted in evidence and human rights will guarantee 

that all people have meaningful access to high-quality, affordable 

abortion care where they live and via the method they choose. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lopez follows.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DESTINY LOPEZ

Thank you, Chair Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy, Senator Murray and the 

Members of the Committee for the opportunity to highlight the clear and growing 

evidence that the Dobbs decision is harming reproductive health and freedom. My 

name is Destiny Lopez, and I am the acting co-CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, 

a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights worldwide. 

For decades following the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, anti-abortion advocates 

worked strategically to make abortion harder to get and highly stigmatized. Public 

support for abortion’s legality has remained high and consistent. But the sheer 

number of state-level abortion restrictions ensured that abortion became inaccessible for many—even with Roe in place. 
17 

1 Information throughout this testimony is referenced here: Baden K, Dreweke J and Gibson 

C. Clear and Growing Evidence That Dobbs Is Harming Reproductive Health and Freedom, 

Guttmacher Institute, 2024, https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/05/clear-and-growing-evidencedobbs-harming-reproductive-health-and-freedom. 

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision was an inflection 

point, unleashing chaos and fear across the Nation. Our experts are constantly assessing this changing landscape and the increasingly robust body of evidence that 

illustrates the harms caused and exacerbated by Dobbs. Two years after the decision, here is what we know. 1

Access to abortion care is severely restricted in many parts of the country. Fourteen states are now enforcing total abortion bans with very limited exceptions, and 

many more have other new restrictions in place. The total number of brick-and-mortar clinics providing abortion care in the U.S. declined by more than 40 between 

2020 and early 2024. 

Banning abortion does not stop the need for abortion access. Which is why many 

people seeking abortions post-Dobbs must overcome huge financial and logistical 

barriers to get care, especially those in states with total or early gestational bans. 

The number of Americans traveling out of state for abortions doubled from 81,000 

in 2020 to more than 170,000 in 2023. States that border states with total abortion 

bans saw the sharpest increases in out-of-state patients. 

No one should have to travel to another state to access basic healthcare. And in 

fact, those who can’t overcome the burdens of traveling for care, which for some 

might mean crossing multiple state lines, may be forced to stay pregnant against 

their will. Others may decide to self-manage their abortion. Decades of research 

have documented that the majority of people obtaining abortions have few financial 

resources, are people of color, and are already parenting. They are the ones most 

harshly impacted by bans and restrictions. 

We also know that providers are resilient and adapting to meet patient needs. 

While brick-and-mortar facilities provide more than three-quarters of all abortions, 

online clinics are expanding care options by offering medication abortion services via 

telehealth. Research by the Society for Family Planning shows that virtual-only 

telehealth abortions accounted for almost one in five abortions from October to December 2023. 

There are many other important ways Dobbs is interfering with reproductive 

health care across the Nation that I don’t have time to discuss in detail today, from 

current and future OB-GYNs not wanting to practice in ban states to impacts on 

maternal health and people facing obstetric emergencies. 

What does all this mean? Overturning Roe did not resolve the debates on abortion 

that have characterized U.S. politics for the past 50 years. Instead, it enabled policies that have significantly worsened the harms faced by individuals who are most 

marginalized in our health care system. 

Still, despite these immense hardships and many people being denied care, there 

were more than one million clinician-provided abortions in 2023—a 10 percent increase from 2020. This is a testament to the heroic efforts of providers, abortion 

funds and other support networks, to the resilience and determination of people 

seeking care, and to the centrality of abortion in peoples’ lives. And it explains why 

the anti-abortion movement and their political allies are doubling down on even 

more repressive policies. 

For instance, this year four states introduced legislation—and one passed a law— 

criminalizing adults who support adolescents seeking abortion care in another state. 

Earlier in the year, the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision to classify frozen embryos as ‘‘children’’ wreaked havoc on fertility treatment services while advancing 

the anti-abortion movement’s long-term goal to enshrine fetal personhood in both 

law and policy. These attacks on bodily autonomy, coupled with two major abortion 

cases currently before the Supreme Court, signal that the policy and legal landscape 

will continue to shift. 

The full damage caused by Dobbs will not be clear for years to come, but the evidence suggests it will not be easy to repair. That’s why it is imperative that policymakers at all levels of government champion a bold vision of abortion care that goes 

beyond what Roe promised. 

Only policies rooted in evidence and human rights will guarantee that all people 

have meaningful access to high-quality, affordable abortion care where they live and 

via the method they choose. 

Thank you. 
18 

[SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DESTINY LOPEZ]

Destiny Lopez is the acting co-CEO of the Guttmacher Institute. Her testimony 

will focus on what the research tells us about the impact of Dobbs, 2 years after 

Roe was overturned. Ms. Lopez will share the state policy landscape as it relates 

to abortion access, including that 14 states are now enforcing total abortion bans. 

Her testimony will include data about people traveling out of state for abortion care 

and why the lack of abortion access in communities exacerbates inequities and falls 

hardest on certain groups. Ms. Lopez’s testimony emphasizes the resilience of providers, support networks and patients in finding ways to provide and access care— 

including the increased use of telehealth to access medication abortion, but makes 

clear that the landscape is fraught with chaos, hardships and many people being 

denied abortion care. She also notes that the policy and legal landscape continue 

to shift—with attacks on IVF and two abortion-related cases before the Supreme 

Court—as the anti-abortion movement doubles down on more repressive policies. 

Senator MURRAY. Dr. Linton. 

STATEMENT OF ALLISON LINTON, M.D., MPH, CHIEF MEDICAL 

OFFICER, PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN, FELLOW, 

PHYSICIANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, MILWAUKEE, WI 

Dr. LINTON. Chair Sanders, Senator Murray, Ranking Member 

Cassidy, Members of the Committee, my name is Dr. Allison 

Linton. I’m a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist as well 

as a board-certified complex family planning specialist. 

I completed my medical school training, a residency in obstetrics 

and gynecology, a complex Family Planning fellowship and a master’s of public health at Northwestern University. I’m now an assistant professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Milwaukee, as 

well as Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin 

and a fellow at Physicians for Reproductive Health. 

I have spent my life learning how to provide the highest standard of care possible to my patients, but because of decisions made 

by people in power in rooms similar to this in Washington and 

across the country, my colleagues and I can no longer provide the 

care we know our patients need. 

For the past 711 days since the Supreme Court took away the 

constitutional right to abortion, my patients and my colleagues 

have been existing in a state of chaos, confusion, and fear. 

In my home State of Wisconsin, a statute from 1849 remained on 

our books that seemed to ban abortion from the moment of conception. A law written before the Civil War in the abolition of slavery, 

before women had the right to vote, before the discovery of penicillin. 

We had questions about the enforceability of the law, but without 

Federal protections, the penalties a $10,000 fine and 6 years in 

prison were too severe to risk. 

All providers in Wisconsin stopped providing abortions immediately after the Dobbs decision, with the exception of if an abortion ‘‘is necessary’’ or is advised by two other physicians is necessary to save the life of the mother per the statute. 

For those who have no understanding of the complexities of the 

human body or the perils of pregnancy, this exception might seem 

self-explanatory. I’m here to inform you Members of the Committee 

that it is not. 
19 

On one hand, we risk medical malpractice and harming a patient 

if we don’t act soon enough. And on the other, we risk criminal 

prosecution, if a prosecutor feels that we acted too early. What 

about a patient with a newly diagnosed breast cancer at 8 weeks 

of pregnancy, who cannot start chemotherapy or radiation while 

she is pregnant. Is delaying her treatment until after delivery a 

risk to her life? 

What about a patient with a blood clotting disorder where pregnancy will further increase their risk of a pulmonary embolism or 

stroke. Is the risk of a blood clot enough or do I have to wait until 

the actual stroke occurs? What about a 13-year-old who’s the victim 

of incest. Is the psychological and physical trauma of carrying a 

child in her barely pubescent body enough to justify ending her 

pregnancy? 

What about a mother of three who cannot emotionally or financially support another child? She is making a loving decision for 

the children she already has. Shouldn’t she have just as much right 

to and control over her body and future as any other person who 

needs an abortion? 

Regardless of the reason, these are not rhetorical questions. 

These are real patients that I encountered and tried to care for in 

Wisconsin. In reality, any law that tries to delineate when an abortion is or is not permitted will never be able to fully account for 

the complexities of our patient’s health and our patient’s lives. 

Each patient’s situation is unique and regardless of their reason 

for needing an abortion, they deserve healthcare. Since June 24th, 

2022, pregnancy in the United States is far more dangerous for patients with medical complexities, yes, but also for people with abusive partners, for people who may not understand what is happening to their bodies. 

For Black women who die from pregnancy and childbirth, three 

times as often as white women. And it will only get more dangerous. The fear of not being able to provide care for patients as 

leading practitioners, to move away from states with abortion bans 

and restrictions, or to stop treating pregnant patients. 

It’s made recruiting providers more difficult. I have had students 

request transfer to another state to finish their training. This 

means that there is less sexual and reproductive healthcare where 

it is most desperately needed. 

After a ruling from a state judge on our 1849 law, we started 

providing abortion again in Wisconsin in late 2023, but we still 

work under medically unnecessary restrictions. These restrictions 

include a 24-hour waiting period, a same provider requirement and 

a ban on telemedicine abortion. They do nothing but make it harder for patients to get the care they need, especially those that live 

in rural areas of the state. 

Abortion bans mean that there is no longer a standard of care 

for pregnant patients. They are getting the care based on the state 

that they live in, in the wealthiest country in the world, this is 

what we’re subjecting pregnant people to: chaos, confusion and 

fear. My patients deserve so much better. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Linton follows.] 
20 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLISON LINTON

Chair Sanders, Senator Murray, Ranking Member Cassidy, Members of the Committee: 

My name is Dr. Allison Linton. I am a board certified obstetrician and gynecologist as well as a board certified complex family planning specialist. 

I completed my medical school training, a residency in obstetrics and gynecology, 

and Complex Family Planning fellowship and Masters of Public Health at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. I subsequently moved to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where I am an Assistant Professor of obstetrics in gynecology, as well as the 

Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, and Fellow at Physicians 

for Reproductive Health. 

I have had the opportunity to teach dozens of ob-gyn residents and hundreds of 

medical students over the past 7 years. I have had the opportunity to work with 

community partners, expanding access to contraception and sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment in multiple Milwaukee health departments. I have 

given lectures and trainings across the Midwest in both academic and community 

settings. 

But most of all, I have been honored to take care of patients. I see them annually 

for Pap tests and breast cancer screening exams, catching up on their new jobs, 

where their kids are going to college, or what vacation they have coming up. I see 

them as adolescents when they have questions about how their body is changing. 

I see them for STI testing, discussions of birth control, irregular periods, and chronic pain symptoms. I sit with them for hours on labor and delivery as they push to 

bring a new baby into the world. And I cry with them when something changes in 

their life or a new diagnosis is made and they are forced to make decisions they 

never thought they would have to. 

Sometimes they come alone. Sometimes with a partner or a friend. But we are 

always with them. Their doctors, their nurses, their health care teams—we support 

them in every situation, giving them all the information we can, and trusting them 

to make the decision that is best for them. 

Unfortunately, our ability to do our job changed 2 years ago. On June 24, 2022 

at 9:10 a.m. Central Time, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling sent reproductive health care into a tailspin. For the past 711 days, my patients 

and my colleagues have been existing in a state of chaos, confusion and fear. 

In my home state of Wisconsin, a statute from 1849 remained on our books, which 

seemed to ban abortion from the moment of conception. A law written before the 

Civil War and the abolition of slavery, before women had the right to vote, before 

the discovery of penicillin. While there were certainly questions about the enforceability of this law, due to the harsh penalties associated with violating it—$10,000 

fine and 6 years in prison—all abortions in the state were immediately ceased. 

There was only a narrow exception for an abortion that ‘‘is necessary, or is advised 

by 2 other physicians as necessary, to save the life of the mother.’’ No exceptions 

for rape or incest. No further language to help clarify. Just that one sentence. 

For those who have no understanding of the complexities of the human body or 

the perils of pregnancy, this exception may seem self-explanatory. I have heard 

some say that physicians should know which cases meet this exception and which 

don’t. That it is up to our best medical judgment and it’s the physician’s fault if 

a patient suffers from not receiving appropriate care. 

As a practicing physician, I can tell you this is NOT self explanatory. Deciding 

whether something is or is not necessary to ‘‘save the life of the mother’’ is not clear. 

Phrases like ‘‘threat to maternal life’’ are not a medical diagnosis, and adding 

phases like ‘‘imminent death’’ or ‘‘direct threat’’ do not help to clarify. Medicine is 

complex and rapidly changing. It is an art where physicians must take all the information presented and try to predict a prognosis or outcome. And we are not infallible. Our tools are not infallible. Telling a physician to ‘‘do our best’’ under threat 

of felony charges if someone doesn’t agree with our best medical judgment is not 

fair and it is not appropriate. 

As physicians, we are trained to make decisions based on the medical evidence 

in front of us. We are taught to minimize risk to our patients, discuss all medically 

appropriate options, including their relevant risks and benefits, and honor patient 

autonomy when they choose the treatment that is best for them. As of June 24, 2022 

at 9:10 a.m. Central, we were no longer able to do this. 

When would an abortion be necessary ‘‘to save the life of the mother’’? 
21 

What about a patient who presents with heavy bleeding in the first trimester, but 

there is still fetal cardiac activity on ultrasound—can I remove the pregnancy to 

stop her bleeding? Do I have to wait for a certain amount of blood loss? Do I have 

to wait for her vital signs to change, or until she needs a blood transfusion, or until 

she bleeds so much that she can no longer clot her own blood? 

What about a pregnancy affected by a lethal fetal diagnosis such as anencephaly 

where the top of the fetal head fails to develop or renal agenesis where the fetus’s 

lungs cannot develop. Continuation of pregnancy will never lead to a live child, so 

is the risk of pregnancy without any potential benefit enough to justify an abortion? 

What about when the bag of water breaks before the fetus can survive outside 

the womb? Or a pregnant patient with unresolved congestive heart failure from her 

last pregnancy that puts her at a higher risk of dying in this pregnancy—what percent chance of death does she need? 

What about a patient with newly diagnosed breast cancer at 8 weeks of pregnancy 

who cannot start chemotherapy or radiation while she is pregnant? Is delaying her 

treatment until after delivery a risk to her life? 

What about a patient with a blood clotting disorder where pregnancy will further 

increase their risk of a pulmonary embolism or stroke? Is the risk of a blood clot 

enough, or do I have to wait until the actual stroke occurs? 

What about a 13 year old who is the victim of incest? Is the psychological and 

physical trauma of carrying a child in her barely pubescent body enough to justify 

ending the pregnancy? 

What about a mother of three who cannot emotionally or financially support another child? She is making a loving decision for the children she already has. She 

should have just as much control over her body and future as any other person who 

needs an abortion, for any reason. 

These are not rhetorical questions. They are real patients that my colleagues and 

I have encountered and tried to care for in Wisconsin. 

In reality, any law that tries to delineate when an abortion is or is not permitted 

will never be able to fully account for the complexities of our patients’ health and 

their lives. Each patient’s situation is unique, and regardless of their reason for 

needing an abortion, they deserve health care. These decisions are deeply personal, 

and my job is to make sure my patients have all the information they need to make 

the best decision for themselves, their families, and their futures. 

Under the 1849 law, instead of being able to follow the medicine—offering patients all their options and letting them choose—we would call additional colleagues 

asking their opinions, we would discuss cases with our hospital’s lawyers. And far 

too often, we would have to look our patients in the eye and tell them that despite 

having the medical training to help them and knowing that an abortion was a safe 

and medically appropriate option, we couldn’t help them in their home state due to 

a law written over 170 years ago by legislators who likely had no medical training 

and certainly had no understanding of modern medicine. 

The consequences of this confusion and fear went beyond what many would typically consider abortion-related. I received calls from colleagues asking if they could 

provide care for a patient who had experienced a miscarriage. I received calls from 

colleagues in Illinois and Minnesota who were seeing patients with ectopic pregnancies who had been told they could not receive care in Wisconsin. 

Of course my first thought was frustration and concern for patients that were not 

receiving the standard of care due to fear and misunderstanding. But you must remember we are physicians—not lawyers. These physicians were afraid, trying to interpret an archaic, non-medical law through a modern medical lens. They feared a 

threat of prosecution, loss of their medical license, loss of their livelihood and career. 

You cannot blame physicians for being afraid when you have forced them to go 

against the core tenants of their medical training. 

Shortly after the Dobbs decision, my partners and I discussed our concerns of covering labor and delivery due to fear of what clinical scenarios may present. We 

feared being forced to go against our medical training of providing the standard of 

care OR providing the standard of care and putting ourselves at risk of criminal 

prosecution. I had similar discussions with my colleagues in the Emergency Department and institutions across the state. We all felt we were left with an impossible 

choice—risk of malpractice and harming a patient or risk of criminal prosecution? 

Since June 24, 2022, pregnancy in the United States is far more dangerous. For 

patients with medical complications, yes, but also for people with abusive partners. 

For people who may not understand what is happening to their bodies. For Black 
22 

women, who die from pregnancy and childbirth three times as often as white 

women. 

It will only get more dangerous: The fear of not being able to adequately care for 

patients has led some practitioners to choose to move out of their home states or 

to stop caring for pregnant patients. It has also made it more difficult to recruit new 

providers to move into states where they may face criminal prosecution for providing the standard of care. In many areas of the country with maternity care 

deserts, including Wisconsin, this difficulty retaining and recruiting providers will 

only worsen our maternal health crisis. There is less sexual and reproductive health 

care where it is most desperately needed. 

In the wake of Dobbs, I learned of several residents and medical students inquiring about transferring to another state for the remainder of their training. Speaking 

to one student, they voiced concerns not just about not being able to receive adequate training to provide comprehensive care to their patients after graduation, but 

given that they too were of reproductive age, they worried about their health if they 

or their partner were to experience a medical complication during pregnancy. 

Unfortunately, confusion and fear was not isolated to physicians and health care 

providers. While Wisconsin’s 1849 law only threatened prosecution of the person 

who performed an abortion and not the patient themselves, patients were still 

afraid. I met with patients who told me they were afraid to come to the emergency 

room when they were experiencing medical complications in early pregnancy, concerned they would be denied care or accused of doing something to themselves to 

harm the pregnancy. I spoke with a patient who told me she thought she wasn’t 

allowed to discuss her thoughts about terminating her pregnancy with her own family, being under the impression that they could be charged with a crime if they 

knew what she was considering. Despite trying our best as a medical community 

to reassure patients that they could trust their health care team and should feel 

safe seeking help, I have no doubt that many patients did not receive the care they 

deserved due to confusion and fear stopping them from disclosing information to 

their providers. 

After a ruling from a state judge on our 1849 law, we started providing abortion 

again in Wisconsin in late 2023. Now, the lower court’s ruling is making its way 

through the appeals process. Because we don’t have any affirmative state-wide protection, there is uncertainty about the future of abortion access in Wisconsin. And 

we still work under medically unnecessary restrictions. These restrictions, including 

a mandatory 24-hour waiting period, with a same-provider requirement for medication abortion, and a ban on telemedicine abortion, do nothing but make it harder 

for patients to get the care they need—especially those who live in rural areas of 

the state. 

I’m glad to see the Senate taking action, from Senator Baldwin’s legislation to 

help restore the Federal right to abortion, to moving to pass the Right to Contraception Act and ensuring the right to IVF. All of this will not fix what has been broken 

by the Dobbs decision, but it is a step in the right direction. 

Abortion bans mean there is no longer a standard of care for pregnant patients— 

they’re getting care based on the state they live in. In the wealthiest country in the 

world, this is what we’re subjecting pregnant people to: chaos, confusion, and fear. 

My patients deserve so much better. 

[SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ALLISON LINTON]

My name is Dr. Allison Linton. I am a board certified obstetrician and gynecologist as well as a board certified complex family planning specialist. 

I completed my medical school training, a residency in obstetrics and gynecology, 

and Complex Family Planning fellowship and Masters of Public Health at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. I subsequently moved to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where I am an Assistant Professor of obstetrics in gynecology, as well as the 

Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Fellow at Physicians 

for Reproductive Health. 

As physicians, we are trained to make decisions based on the medical evidence 

in front of us. We are taught to minimize risk to our patients, discuss all medically 

appropriate options, including their relevant risks and benefits, and honor patient 

autonomy when they choose the treatment that is best for them. As of June 24, 2022 

at 9:10 a.m., we were no longer able to do this. For the past 711 days, my patients 

and my colleagues have been existing in a state of chaos, confusion and fear. 
23 

In my home state of Wisconsin, a statute from 1849 remained on our books, which 

seemed to ban abortion from the moment of conception. A law written before the 

Civil War and the abolition of slavery, before women had the right to vote, before 

the discovery of penicillin. While there were certainly questions about the enforceability of this law, due to the harsh penalties associated with violating it—$10,000 

fine and 6 years in prison—all abortions in the state were immediately ceased with 

the exception of if an abortion ‘‘is necessary, or is advised by 2 other physicians as 

necessary, to save the life of the mother.’’ 

For those who have no understanding of the complexities of the human body or 

the perils of pregnancy, this exception may seem self-explanatory. As a practicing 

physician, I can tell you this is NOT self explanatory. Telling a physician to ‘‘do our 

best’’ under threat of felony charges if someone doesn’t agree with our best medical 

judgment is not fair and it is not appropriate. 

In reality, any law that tries to delineate when an abortion is or is not permitted 

will never be able to fully account for the complexities of our patients’ health and 

their lives. Each patient’s situation is unique, and regardless of their reason for 

needing an abortion, they deserve health care. These decisions are deeply personal, 

and my job is to make sure my patients have all the information they need to make 

the best decision for themselves, their families, and their futures. 

After a ruling from a state judge on our 1849 law, we started providing abortion 

again in Wisconsin in late 2023. But we still work under medically unnecessary restrictions, and we don’t have any affirmative state-wide protection. 

Abortion bans mean there is no longer a standard of care for pregnant patients— 

they’re getting care based on the state they live in. In the wealthiest country in the 

world, this is what we’re subjecting pregnant people to: chaos, confusion, and fear. 

Senator MURRAY. Dr. Francis. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA FRANCIS, M.D., CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PRO-LIFE OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, FORT WAYNE, IN 

Dr. FRANCIS. Thank you. Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member 

Cassidy, and Senator Murray, and Members of the Committee. 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you today. As 

a board-certified OB-GYN hospitalist, who manages both high and 

low risk pregnancies and has delivered thousands of babies, I really 

do have the best job in the world. 

Not only do I have the distinct honor and privilege to be with 

women and their families during the most exciting, challenging, 

and sometimes heartbreaking times of their lives. Not only do I get 

to help usher little lives into the outside world for the first time, 

but I also serve as an advocate for both my maternal and fetal patients. 

One of the reasons those of us at this table likely chose the specialty of obstetrics was because of the challenge of taking care of 

two patients at once. Induced abortion, which intentionally ends 

the life of one of those patients is not healthcare. It is not performed by the vast majority of OB-GYNs and it actively harms our 

patients. 

Thankfully, in most circumstances, the lives of our two patients 

benefit one another and our mantra of healthy mom, healthy baby, 

is a reality. There are, however, still situations in which a pregnancy complication can endanger the mother’s life. While these 

most often occur after the point of fetal viability, currently approximately 22 weeks of pregnancy, they can occur before this point. 

The decision to intervene in these situations is extremely difficult, and not one that any of us take lightly. I have sat on the 
24 

edge of my patient’s bed crying with her as we discussed why we 

couldn’t wait even one or two more weeks when her baby might 

survive to deliver her. In these discussions, we recognize that our 

intent in intervening is to save the mother’s life, with the unintended consequence of our fetal patient losing his or her life. 

An induced abortion occurs when the goal is to end our fetal patient’s life. In my nearly two decades of practice, I have never performed an induced abortion, and have also seen most of my colleagues provide excellent care to women even in difficult circumstances without abortion as well. 

There’s been a lot of false information being spread that laws 

limiting abortion will prevent these lifesaving treatments. But honestly, this is absurd. Not only do no state laws prohibit these treatments, but even state laws restricting abortion before Roe allowed 

for them. 

There are more than 7,000 members of AAPLOG, along with the 

remainder of the 93 percent of OB-GYNs who do not perform abortions, know that induced abortion does not need to be legal in order 

to ensure we can provide our patients with excellent healthcare. 

Women deserve fully informed consent and ongoing medical care. 

This is yet another point of agreement we should have at this 

table. 

However, the same abortion advocates who are positing that 

women will die from ectopic pregnancies if states restrict abortion, 

are the people who have for the last several years, been advocating 

for women to receive abortion drugs without first being seen by a 

physician. Which is critical to ensure they do not have an ectopic 

pregnancy, which occur in one in 50 pregnancies and are the leading cause of maternal mortality in the first trimester. 

This is not good medical care and women seeking abortions deserve the same level of healthcare as any other woman. Induced 

abortion has no health benefits to our patients. It ends the life of 

one and often causes significant harm to the other. 

For example, there are more than 160 studies that show an increased risk of preterm birth in future pregnancies after surgical 

abortions. Having sat with a patient during the loss of her fifth 

child, due to extreme prematurity after having surgical abortions 

with her first two pregnancies, I can tell you that this is devastating for women and their families. 

Abortion also leads to a significant increased risk of adverse 

mental health outcomes. The vast majority of the literature on this 

issue shows long lasting mental health effects from abortion, including depression, anxiety, drug abuse, and suicide for at least 20 

to 30 percent of women. 

When our Country is already facing a mental health crisis, we 

should be minimizing things that contribute to this, not encouraging them. As OB-GYNs, we love caring for both our patients. We 

all desire for women to have the best possible healthcare and for 

them and their children to have the best chance to pursue their 

goals and dreams. 

Pro-life laws have not created a women’s healthcare nightmare. 

The idea that induced abortion is the only way women can be suc-
25 

cessful or healthy has. We now have the opportunity to change 

course. 

I invite my colleagues at the table, the thousands of OB-GYNs 

across this country and you Senators, to lead the way as we empower women with accurate information as exceptional healthcare 

and better solutions for our maternal patients than ending the 

lives of their own children. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Francis follows.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA FRANCIS
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

[SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA FRANCIS]

As a board-certified OB/GYN Hospitalist who manages both high-and low-risk 

pregnancies and has delivered thousands of babies, I have the distinct privilege to 

be with women and their families during the most exciting, challenging, and sometimes heartbreaking times of their lives. I am also here as an advocate for my patients. 

With the advancements in medical technology and understanding over the last 

50+ years, it is now undisputed fact that, at the moment of fertilization, a distinct, 

living and whole human being comes into existence. 

While most pregnancy complications threatening the mother’s life occur after the 

point of fetal viability (currently approximately 22 weeks of pregnancy), they can 

occur before this point. The decision to intervene in these situations, especially 

preterm, is extremely difficult and not one that I take lightly. These interventions 

are not induced abortions. 

There has been a lot of false information being spread that laws limiting abortion 

will prevent these life-saving treatments, but this is simply untrue. Not only do NO 

state laws currently on the books prohibit these treatments, but even state laws restricting abortion pre-Roe allowed for them. The more than 7,000 members of 

AAPLOG, the American Association of Prolife OB/GYNs, along with the remainder 

of the 76–93 percent of OB/GYNs who do not perform abortions, know that induced 

abortion does not need to be legal in order to ensure we can provide our patients 

with excellent healthcare. 

In fact, excellent healthcare does not include induced abortion at all. Induced abortion has no health benefits to my patients—it ends the life of one and often causes 

significant harm to the other. For instance, there are more than 160 studies that 

show an increased risk of preterm birth in future pregnancies after surgical abortion. 

Abortion also leads to a significant increased risk of adverse mental health outcomes. The vast majority of the literature on this issue shows long-lasting mental 

health effects from abortion including depression, anxiety, drug abuse and suicide 

for at least 20–30 percent of women. One large study showed that women who had 

abortions had a 7x increased risk of suicide compared to women who carried their 

pregnancies to term. 

The other witnesses and I have something essential in common. I assume we all 

desire for women to have the best possible healthcare and for them and their children. Prolife laws have not created a women’s healthcare ‘‘nightmare’’—the idea 

that induced abortion is the only way women can be successful or healthy has. We 

now have the opportunity to change course—and tens of thousands of physicians 

across the country who do not perform induced abortions are ready to lead the way 

as we empower women with accurate information and excellent healthcare. 

Senator MURRAY. Ms. Ohden. 

STATEMENT OF MELISSA OHDEN, MSW, FOUNDER AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE ABORTION SURVIVORS NETWORK, KANSAS CITY, MI 

Ms. OHDEN. Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to today’s 

hearing. I am Melissa Ohden, the survivor of a failed saline infusion abortion, and the founder and CEO of the Abortion Survivors 

Network. 

Babies survived abortions before Roe v. Wade. We survived during Roe v. Wade, and babies are still surviving abortions no matter 

where or how the abortion is performed. These experiences highlight the fundamental and undeniable humanity of the pre-born 

and the needs, fears, and experiences of their mothers. I appreciate 

this opportunity to have a serious conversation about this issue 

and for stories that highlight the impact of abortion to be told. 
37 

Earlier this year, The Washington Post wrote a story about a 

woman named Evelyn that I want to share with you today. 

Evelyn’s trips to abortion clinics ended differently than expected. 

Two separate attempts where medication abortion failed, and she 

was found to be too far along to abort a third time. If we’re going 

to talk about women’s experiences with abortion, then we need to 

include these stories in this discussion as well. 

I empathize with Evelyn, shocked at discovering that her first 

medication abortion failed. As directly quoted, she fainted when 

she saw that there was a heartbeat on the ultrasound and was in 

and out of consciousness for about 5 minutes. 

As a journalist Amber Ferguson wrote with an honesty I appreciate, ‘‘Evelyn says she didn’t know that the pills sometimes didn’t 

work’’. She later learned that 3 percent of medication abortions fail 

when the gestation reaches 70 days or 10 weeks according to the 

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

I can tell you that the Abortion Survivors Network hears these 

stories from women time and again. They’re shocked to discover 

they’re still pregnant with the baby they attempted to abort. They 

try to keep it a secret and often navigate it alone. 

Whether they continue the pregnancy or attempt another abortion or multiple abortions as Evelyn did. As directly quoted, desperate Evelyn found a website aid access that shipped abortion 

medication across the country. 

After speaking with a doctor by phone and paying $150, she 

waited for pills that were being mailed from India. This second 

course of abortion drugs also failed to end her pregnancy. Evelyn’s 

story and her daughter’s life wasn’t over yet. As the article continues, she found a clinic in Albuquerque that offered second trimester abortions. She was approaching the third trimester. 

The clinic staff warned about the health risks of having a surgical abortion so late in her pregnancy, but helped connect her to 

two abortion organizations that covered the cost of her plane ticket, 

hotel food, and the $12,000 procedure. We need to pause here and 

truly consider Evelyn and her daughter. 

The support she was offered after the failure of two medication 

abortions was to pay for a plane ticket, lodging, food, and a $12,000 

abortion that posed risks to her health. This is an abysmal response to Evelyn and her baby. Evelyn needed emotional support, 

medical and mental healthcare, financial assistance. Evelyn’s baby 

like me, deserved more than to be subjected to yet another attempt 

to end her life. 

Could you imagine a child in your own life being subjected to socalled medical interventions intended to weaken, starve, burn, or 

dismember them limb by limb until they die? This is the reality of 

abortion and we should be ashamed of it. Evelyn was found to be 

32 weeks pregnant. 

According to Southwestern Women’s Options, the clinic’s doctors 

aren’t trained to perform abortions after 24 weeks. Evelyn soon 

thereafter gave birth to her daughter and she made an adoption 

plan, an option they both can live with. 
38 

1 Ferguson, Amber. ‘‘After abortion attempts, two women now bound by child.’’ Apri l6 2024. 

The Washington Post. 

The nightmare here is not abortion bans. The nightmare is that 

abortion continues to be aggressively promoted, so that it is seen 

as the only option, like a plane ticket and $12,000 for a late-term 

abortion. 

I ask each of you to consider how different women’s and children’s lives, families, our society could be, if just as much money 

was spent to provide financial assistance, housing, education, and 

employment support, childcare, medical, and mental health care. 

This would lead to a new era of women’s empowerment that ends 

the generational trauma of abortion. This doesn’t have to be a 

dream. We can make it a reality. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ohden follows.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MELISSA OHDEN

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for inviting me to today’s hearing. 

I am a survivor of a failed saline infusion abortion and the Founder and CEO of 

The Abortion Survivors Network, which has connected with over 700 survivors of 

abortion procedures. Babies survived abortions before Roe vs. Wade, we survived 

during Roe vs. Wade, and babies are still surviving abortions, no matter where or 

how the abortion is performed, as I’ll be sharing today. These experiences highlight 

the fundamental and undeniable humanity of the preborn and the needs, fears, and 

experiences of their mothers. 

I appreciate the opportunity to have a serious conversation about this issue and 

for stories that highlight the impact of abortion to be told. My hope is that today’s 

discussion is the catalyst for intellectual honesty, deeper conversations and understanding, and collective support across the aisle for women, children, and families. 

Earlier this year, the Washington Post wrote a story about a woman named Evelyn. Evelyn was young and pregnant, and the article chronicled her decision to obtain an abortion and end her pregnancy. This is a common and familiar story, but 

this story had a plot twist. Her first abortion failed, her second also failed, but she 

persevered and sought a late-term abortion but was denied it. This, too, may be part 

of the familiar narratives. However, the redemption in her story is evident, as she 

decided to place her child for adoption and now has a relationship with her daughter and the woman who raises her. 1 Her story is one of a failed abortion, one that 

I am very familiar with but many try to deny or hide. When the term ‘‘abortion survivor’’ is dismissed as ‘‘fake news,’’ women like Evelyn and my birth mother, Ruth, 

are also being dismissed, their experience erased and denied with the experiences 

of those who survived—like Evelyn’s daughter and me. 

If we are going to talk about women’s experiences with abortion and the nightmare of abortion, then we need to include these stories in the discussion, as well. 

While Evelyn’s trips to abortion clinics ended differently than expected—two separate attempts with medication abortion failed, and she was found to be too far along 

to abort a third time—they stand as proof that a pregnancy can continue after an 

abortion. Some of the most powerful words in this article came from the journalist, 

who expanded on and called attention to women’s healthcare in America. Let me 

be clear: Women in America and around the world deserve better than abortion. 

I empathize with Evelyn’s shock at discovering that her first medication abortion 

failed. When a family friend and nurse arranged for bloodwork and an ultrasound 

at a hospital after months passed without her menstrual cycle returning, as directly 

quoted, she ‘‘fainted when she saw that there was a heartbeat, and was in and out 

of consciousness for about 5 minutes’’ (1). 

As the journalist Amber Ferguson wrote with an honesty I appreciate,‘‘Evelyn 

says she didn’t know the pills sometimes didn’t work. It is a rare occurrence, but 

she later learned that 3 percent of medication abortions fail when gestation reaches 

70 days, or 10 weeks, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The odds of failure increase if the patient waits longer than prescribed to 

take the second dose of the medication, several medical experts said’’ (1). 
39 

2 Aultman, Kathi et al. ‘‘Deaths and Severe Adverse Events after the use of Mifepristoneas 

an Abortifacient from September 2000 to February 2019.’’ Issues in law & medicine vol. 

36,1(2021):3–26. 

Abortion bans have not ended abortion—we’ve merely seen a shift to abortion 

pills. These pills have a lower success rate and result in women becoming their own 

DIY abortionist. The results of this access to abortion are staggering, nearly 1–8 

percent of abortion pills fail, which means that women are still facing the same 

challenges as before, and put themselves and their child at risk for repeat abortion 

attempts (2345). 

How could Evelyn know this when women aren’t told this information? The Abortion Survivors Network hears these stories from women time and time again—they 

are shocked to discover they are still pregnant with the baby they attempted to 

abort. They are unaware that abortion procedures, including medication abortion, 

can fail. They feel shame and guilt, uncertainty and fear about their baby’s future. 

They try to keep this a secret and often navigate it alone—whether they continue 

the pregnancy or attempt another abortion—or multiple abortions—as Evelyn did. 

Women nationwide could identify with Evelyn’s experience because it weaves several threads of an abortion experience. ‘‘Desperate, Evelyn found a website, Aid Access, that shipped abortion medication across the country. After speaking with a 

doctor by phone and paying $150, she waited for pills that were being mailed from 

India. Evelyn had told the doctor she wasn’t sure the date of her last period’’ (1). 

Shocking as it was for Evelyn, this second course of abortion drugs also failed to 

end her pregnancy. 

This was not what Evelyn was told would happen. It must have been agonizing 

when she realized that not one, but now two medication abortions failed to end her 

pregnancy. But her story, and her daughter’s story—her daughter’s life—wasn’t over 

yet. 

As the article continues, ‘‘She found a clinic in Albuquerque that offered secondtrimester abortions. She was past the halfway point in her pregnancy and approaching the third trimester, but she still had time, Evelyn told herself. The clinic staff 

warned about the health risks of having a surgical abortion so late in her pregnancy 

but helped connect her to two abortion organizations that covered the cost of her 

plane ticket, hotel, food and the $12,000 procedure . . . ’’ (1). 

We need to pause here and truly consider Evelyn and her daughter. 

The support she was offered after the failure of two medication abortions was to 

pay for her plane ticket, lodging, food, and the $12,000 abortion that posed risks to 

her health. 

This is an abysmal response to Evelyn and her baby. Evelyn needed emotional 

support, medical and mental health care, financial assistance, and answers to the 

questions she had about the impact medication abortion attempts had on her developing baby. Evelyn’s baby deserved more than to be subjected to yet another attempt to end her life. Can you imagine a child in your own life subjected to so called 

‘‘medical treatments’’ intended to weaken, starve, burn or dismember them limb by 

limb until they die? 

This is the reality of abortion. And we should be ashamed of it. 

Yet this story did not end in an abortion clinic. ‘I’m so sorry,’ Evelyn remembers 

the nurse telling her, looking at the screen.‘You are too far along, 32 weeks pregnant,’ she said, pausing before adding, ‘We can’t help you.’ The clinic’s doctors aren’t 

trained to perform abortions after 24 weeks, according to Southwestern Women’s 

Options. 

‘‘Suddenly out of options for ending the pregnancy, Evelyn began to consider a future that had once seemed impossible. She would be giving birth’’ (1). 

In Deaths and severe adverse events after the use of mifepristone as an abortifacient, 2 the researchers found that in 452 patients with ongoing pregnancy after the 

use of mifepristone—102 (22.57 percent) chose to continue the pregnancy, 148 (32.74 

percent) terminated again, one miscarried and 201 (44.7 percent) had unknown outcomes. Although there are a number of ways to interpret these statistics, for today’s 

hearing to I want to emphasize the researchers’ concluding concern: 

‘‘The significant number of women who chose to continue their pregnancy 

after initially choosing termination raises concerns regarding pre-abortion 

counseling and informed consent they received . . . Additionally, the high 

percentage of women with ongoing pregnancies for whom there is no followup or known outcome is concerning. As health care providers, we are to con-
40 

tinue to care for our patients and manage any complications yet in the 

AER’s (Adverse Event Reports) we reviewed this was not the case for the 

abortion provider. Furthermore a Federal directory of known outcomes and birth defects is imperative’’ (2). 

This hearing purports that abortion bans have caused a nightmare for pregnant 

women who are facing an unplanned, unwanted, or a complicated pregnancy. I want 

to correct that false narrative and remind you all that the nightmare existed before 

any bans took effect. The nightmare is that women have been made to believe that 

pregnancy is a problem. The nightmare is that women are told abortion will solve 

that problem. 

The nightmare is that this ‘‘solution’’ continues to be aggressively promoted so 

that it is seen as the only solution—like a plane ticket and $12,000 for a late-term 

abortion. I ask you to consider how different women’s lives, children’s lives, families, 

our society could be if just as much money was spent to provide financial assistance, 

housing, education and employment support, childcare, and medical and mental 

health care. This would lead to a new era of women’s empowerment,that ends the 

generational trauma of abortion—if that too pricey, then perhaps, we are spending 

too much money helping women get abortions. 

When women know there is support available to them outside of seeking an abortion, then they are empowered and will make choices that everyone can live with. 

Evelyn’s story proves this can happen. My story, and countless others, are proof this 

is an attainable reality in America, it is not just a dream. 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

[SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MELISSA OHDEN]

Babies survived abortions before Roe vs. Wade, we survived during Roe vs. Wade, 

and babies are still surviving abortions, no matter where or how the abortion is performed. These experiences highlight the fundamental and undeniable humanity of 

the preborn and the needs, fears, and experiences of their mothers. 

Earlier this year, the Washington Post wrote a story about a woman named Evelyn. Evelyn was young and pregnant, and the article chronicled her decision to obtain an abortion and end her pregnancy. Her first abortion failed, her second also 

failed, but she persevered and sought a late-term abortion but was denied it. If we 

are going to talk about women’s experiences with abortion and the nightmare of 

abortion, then we need to include these stories in the discussion, as well. 

Abortion bans have not ended abortion—we’ve merely seen a shift to medication 

abortion. These pills have a lower success rate and result in women becoming their 

own DIY abortionist. The results of this access to abortion are staggering, nearly 

1–8 percent of abortion pills fail, which means that women are still facing the same 

challenges as before, and put themselves and their child at risk for repeat abortion 

attempts. 

This hearing purports that abortion bans have caused a nightmare for pregnant 

women who are facing an unplanned, unwanted, or a complicated pregnancy. The 

nightmare is that women are told abortion will solve that problem. The nightmare 

is that this ‘‘solution’’ continues to be aggressively promoted so that it is seen as 

the only solution—like a plane ticket and $12,000 for a late-term abortion. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you to all of our witnesses. We will now 

begin a round of 5-minute questions and I’ll ask my colleagues to 

keep track of your clock and stay within those 5 minutes. 

Mady, I want to start with you. First off, thank you so much for 

being here today, telling your story. I know it is not easy and it 

takes a lot of courage to be here in front of all these people to talk 

about something so personal to you. We really appreciate it. 

You touched upon in your remarks many hoops that you had to 

jump through just to be able to get your abortion, including traveling, I think you said, over 700 miles round trip away from your 

home in Texas to Mississippi. Talk a little bit about how you felt 

when you were forced to drive 13 hours, out of state, to get care. 

What was going through your head? 

Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you so much for that question, Senator. 

There was a lot going through my mind when I was having to go 

through the travel. Like I said in my testimony, I was extremely 

anxious and sleep deprived, so a little bit delirious in the part of 

just wanting to sleep and feel relaxed. I felt very on edge, constantly fearing what would be thrown at me next. 

Senator MURRAY. How’d you feel after receiving care in Mississippi, on the way back home? 

Ms. ANDERSON. When I was able to get my abortion and receive 

care, that was the first time I was able to sleep more than 3 hours 

and I woke up and I looked at my mom and I started crying. Because I was like, I got to sleep, I can finally breathe, and this huge 

weight just lifted off my chest. 

Senator MURRAY. It’s your life and your choice. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Absolutely. 

Senator MURRAY. Dr. Francis, I have a question for you and I 

want a simple yes or no. Do you believe that women should have 

access to plan B? Yes, or no? 
48 

Dr. FRANCIS. I believe women deserve to have accurate information about their healthcare. 

Senator MURRAY. I’m not asking you that question. Do you believe that women should have access to plan B? 

Dr. FRANCIS. I think that women should be given any medication 

under the supervision of a physician. 

Senator MURRAY. You support access to plan B? 

Dr. FRANCIS. I support women having access to accurate information and care from a physician. 

Senator MURRAY. Do you believe that women should have access 

to medication abortion? Just yes or no. 

Dr. FRANCIS. Chemical abortion are dangerous high-risk drugs. 

Senator MURRAY. No. Do you believe women should have access 

to IUDs? Yes, or no? 

Dr. FRANCIS. I believe that again, women should receive comprehensive healthcare access under the direction of a physician. 

Senator MURRAY. Access to IUDs. Do you believe women should 

have access to IUDs? Yes, or no? 

Dr. FRANCIS. I believe that women should have access to OBGYN physicians who can counsel them about all of their options. 

Senator MURRAY. I take that as a no. And I want to ask you for 

the record today, do you think that IUDs and emergency contraceptives are abortifacients? Yes, or no? 

Dr. FRANCIS. If you look at the package inserts for such as the 

copper IUD, it actually clearly states that they do prevent implantation, even if fertilization has occurred, which would classify that 

as an abortive for patients—per the package insert. 

Senator MURRAY. Okay. I just want to, for the record, Dr. 

Francis, your organization has taken the mind-boggling position in 

defiance of nearly all medical experts that abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life. According to resources that were put 

out by your organization, you recommend that in cases of dangerous pregnancy complications, like a massive placental abruption, women should be forced to labor for 24 hours, even if that 

means being treated with blood transfusions in intensive care, and 

even if their pregnancy is non-viable in the first place, just so they 

can deliver an ‘‘intact’’ fetus. 

It has also been well-documented how your organization is working behind the scenes with Republican lawmakers to redefine certain kinds of contraceptives as abortions, so you can ultimately ban 

those types of contraception. I think that is incredibly alarming. 

It’s really important for people to understand the Republican minority has specifically invited you to this hearing today, despite 

those dangerous positions. 

For the information of all Senators, we are going to be voting 

this week on the right to contraception. And I hope everyone truly 

thinks about what that means for women and how it would change 

our entire country and our women’s rights moving forward across 

the board. So, I just wanted to make that very clear. 

I just have a few seconds left, Dr. Verma really quickly. Many 

states, yours included, require many, a lot of time, a lot of con-
49 

sulting, a lot of multiple trips to doctors. How does that affect the 

healthcare system in general? 

Dr. VERMA. It immensely affects the healthcare system to make 

basic medical decisions about whether we can provide care to a patient in front of us. We’re often having to involve legal representatives, hospital administration, that creates delays in care instead 

of just being able to provide the care that we know is right for the 

patient sitting in front of us. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. And I am out of time, so I will turn 

it to Senator Cassidy. 

Senator CASSIDY. I’ll defer to Senator Mullin. 

Senator MULLIN. Thank you. And thank you, Chairwoman. I just 

want to actually commend everybody for actually having a good 

conversation here. I expected this to actually be pretty rambunctious, and so for that, I’m probably going to leave a lot of my questions out because I came here to be punchy. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MULLIN. I think it’s important that I share a story. And 

then I do have a couple of questions too, because I do appreciate 

everybody’s opinion. And that’s what this is about, is about having 

a conversation. And I think put in a context of why I’m so pro-life 

may help a little bit of the understand our positions, right? 

I’ve been married for 27 years. I got married when I was 19. My 

wife was 18. First question my father-in-law asked me when I 

asked to marry my wife, Christie is, is she pregnant? 

I was like, no, I don’t think so. And at 7 years later, we were 

still trying to have kids. And my wife had endometriosis, and it 

took a long time to have kids. We went through everything you can 

think of in vitro, through shots, through you can imagine. And then 

she got pregnant, and that was my Christmas gift, 1 year I got out 

of my stocking. 

It was quite an exciting time and we went through the pregnancy and we went to the first doctor visit and how excited it was. 

And then we went later on and we heard the heartbeat the first 

time. And I’m going to tell you, that was a child to me. I mean, 

I was so excited. We were thinking them names. We were going 

through the whole process. And man, I can’t tell you the excitement 

I had. 

I literally, I’m not even a crier at that time. Now, I talk about 

my kids, I cry all the time. But I remember getting emotional for 

the first time and I was thinking, what is this inside of me, a tear 

about to drop out of my eyes. 

But then while through the pregnancy, she went back in and she 

had a miscarriage. That was a death to us, hundred percent death 

to us, so no one will say that wasn’t a death. That was a child 

when I heard the heartbeat, and it was a death when we didn’t 

hear the heartbeat. And it was extremely difficult for my wife and 

I. 

Fortunately, literally, the month that child was due to be born, 

we found out we were pregnant again. And his name is Jim Martin 

Mullin, and after my dad. 
50 

15 months later, we had another one because people that tell 

you, you can’t get pregnant when breastfeeding, lies, because you 

can. And his name is Andrew Daniel Mullin. 

Three years later, after the doctor said she couldn’t get pregnant 

anymore, and she was going to have to have a hysterectomy, we 

had another one. And her name is Larra, and she’s 15, Larra 

Mullin, and lord, she’s 15. And love her to death. 

Then my wife and I decided we were not going to have kids anymore, and I got a vasectomy and she got an ablation. And yet we 

still collected three more kids. Because there were three kids that 

deserved a home and two mothers that loved those children so 

much instead of aborting them, they were brave enough to carry 

them. 

Gave Christie and I an opportunity to love these three wonderful 

kids, two twins named Ivy and Lynette that we’d adopted when 

they were 2 years old, and now they’re 13. And Jace, who is wrestling at Oklahoma State as we speak, I was in Ohio with him this 

week. And his mother was just barely 20 years old. And the twins’ 

mother was 15 when she got pregnant. 

I thank God every day, literally every day that those mothers 

gave Christie and I an opportunity to be blessed and be loved by 

these three kids. 

There’s options. What’s sad is when you look at statistically 

speaking is that, over 50 percent of the pregnancies inside the 

United States is unplanned, but 50 percent of all pregnancies also 

end in abortion. That’s sad. I mean, you’re lucky to be born right 

now, and inside DC its 51.5 percent of all pregnancies, meaning we 

end more pregnancies here in Washington DC than we actually 

have. Something’s wrong. 

Abortion has become almost a point of convenience. While we understand it’s unplanned, but that child deserves an opportunity to 

be in a loving home, just like my three kids are. I tell everybody 

we had three, we got stuck with, and three we chose. Which ones 

do you think we love the most? 

I’m blessed, Christy and I are blessed, but we got to talk about 

the reality here. And we’re not talking about rape and incest and 

high-risk births. Those account for less than 9.5 percent of all 

births out there. 8 percent are high risk, 1 percent are rape, point 

less than 0.5 percent of from incest. We’re not talking about those 

abortions; we’re talking about others. 

Guys, we can do better as a country. And that’s what this conversation is about. We have to talk about it. Just give these kids 

an opportunity to live. They’ll bless somebody, because Our kids 

bless us every single day. With that I yield back. 

Senator MURRAY. Senator Sanders. 

The CHAIR. Let me thank all of the panelists for their testimony. 

I think we can all agree that the issue we’re discussing today is 

an emotional issue. It is a difficult issue. And sincerely people have 

different points of view on the issue. 

I would like to direct my questioning to doctors Verma and 

Linton, and ask them this. No doubt you have experienced women 

and their partners who have jumped for joy when they learned that 
51 

they were pregnant and that you did everything you could to make 

sure that the pregnancy was successful. 

I suspect you have also met with many women who, for a variety 

of reasons, whatever they may be, health reasons, economic reasons did not jump for joy when they learned that they were pregnant. 

My question to you is a pretty simple one. I’m assuming that you 

have worked with people in all walks of life, all the economic levels, 

races, so forth. Who do you think is best prepared to make the decision about the future of that pregnancy? Is it people in a legislature, generally speaking often dominated by men, or would it be 

the people who are feeling the impact of that pregnancy? 

Understanding, I would suspect you’ve never told anybody they 

should not have an abortion, right? We respect people’s different 

points of view. Who should make that decision based on your experience? Dr. Verma. 

Dr. VERMA. Yes. Thank you for that question. Based on my experience, people are the experts in their own lives and are able to 

make these really complicated decisions about their own lives. 

I want to say I appreciate Senator Mullin sharing that story. I, 

myself have struggled with infertility, and I’ve experienced a first 

trimester miscarriage that I found devastating. And so, I am not 

at all saying that pregnancies don’t have value. That value is different for different people, and the way that people connect with 

their pregnancies is different. 

Each person is capable of making these really important, sometimes complex, sometimes difficult decisions about their healthcare 

and their life. Even if that sometimes means ending a pregnancy. 

The CHAIR. Dr. Linton on this enormously personal decision, 

should it be a state legislature that makes it for every woman in 

the state, or should it be the woman herself? 

Dr. LINTON. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Verma. I think this 

is a decision that only the patient can make. Every single patient 

situation is unique. Our patients live very complicated lives. And 

I think that we have to trust them. 

Our job as physicians is to meet patients where they are, provide 

them the information that they need, and then support them in 

whatever decision they make for themselves and for their futures. 

The CHAIR. All right, let me ask the doctors again. If you were 

a young physician wanting to practice medicine, would you gravitate to a state which has a harsh anti-abortion law? 

Dr. VERMA. Thank you. This is really difficult for me. I’m from 

the south. I love the south. It is my home, and it has been really 

hard to grapple with wanting to serve my community, but being in 

an environment where I have to face threats of criminal prosecution, of having my license removed for simply providing medicine. 

I have had thoughts about leaving, even though I love my home 

and my community, and I talk to medical students and residents 

every day who are in that same position. They love the south, 

they’re from the south, but are choosing to leave because they can’t 

get the training and they can’t practice in the way that they want 

to. 
52 

The CHAIR. A time when there is already a shortage of physicians in that area. Correct? 

Dr. VERMA. Yes. And in Georgia, 50 percent of counties do not 

have an OB-GYN. And as doctors leave, that doesn’t just affect access to abortion care, it affects access to all types of care, to prenatal care, to miscarriage management. 

Already at the hospital I work at, I see patients coming to labor 

and delivery who have received no prenatal care because they 

haven’t had access to that care that’s just going to get worse and 

worse and make pregnancy riskier and more dangerous. 

The CHAIR. Excellent. Your experience regarding that? 

Dr. LINTON. I would agree. I think that the concerns that I hear 

from trainees are sort of twofold. The first is similar to what Dr. 

Verma was speaking about, wanting to make sure they receive that 

comprehensive training. They want to be able to go into practice 

and feel prepared that they can provide whatever care is necessary 

to serve their patients. 

But I think it’s also important to remember most of our trainees 

are of reproductive age, and they also need to think about what 

would happen if they experienced an unintended pregnancy or an 

unexpected health outcome. So, yes, I have heard from many of my 

trainees concerns about staying in state or certainly about thinking 

about these restrictions when deciding where they aim to practice 

in the future. 

The CHAIR. Thank you. 

Senator MURRAY. Senator Cassidy. 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Ohden, thank 

you for sharing your story. Thank you all. This is a very difficult 

topic and this is part of that dialog and so, so thank you all. Ms. 

Ohden, I understand that you have a child with special needs. Can 

you relate the counseling you received where you suggested that 

you get an abortion or how can you relate that? 

Ms. OHDEN. I do appreciate everyone sharing such personal stories. I think this is part of what we need to do is share our stories 

more, but listen more as well. No matter what side of the aisle 

we’re sitting on. 

Not only am I someone who survived an attempt to end my life 

at approximately 31 weeks gestation by a saline infusion abortion, 

I’m also a woman who has had a first trimester miscarriage and 

have felt that pain. And not just myself, my husband as well. I remember his pain so distinctly. 

I also have a child who was born with complex medical needs. 

I was 36 years old, fast approaching 37. And so even prior to finding out that my daughter had a prenatal diagnosis, I was being 

pressured time and time again with conversations about abortion 

because of my advanced maternal age at 36. 

To the point that even prior to my 20-week ultrasound, I had to 

call up the OB-GYN’s office and let them know that I found it so 

offensive for them to continue to state abortion time and time 

again based on my own personal history that I was asking, they 

not do it again, or I would need to go to another practice. 
53 

I can tell you my daughter is almost 10. She is an incredible 

young woman who has overcome a lot. And as she is raised, to 

know that she has the same dignity and value as everyone else in 

the room. That everyone is made differently. And yes, some of us 

see different doctors for different health issues at different times, 

but she is someone who experiences incredible joy and is living a 

great life. 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you. Dr. Francis, I think that Senator 

Murray was suggesting that you were trying to duck her question 

when you said that people needed to be counseled, but your testimony is very nuanced. 

Now, some of the testimony we’ve heard has suggested somehow 

that women, particularly minority women, particularly African 

American women, and their long-term health outcome is hurt by 

not having ready access to abortion. 

Yet you quote data, and I just compliment you on just how this 

is chockfull of references and studies, it’s like a white paper. Can 

you give a little bit more nuance about how someone should be 

counseled that abortion does not necessarily save a life? In some 

ways, it brings further complications. 

Dr. FRANCIS. Yes, absolutely. Thank you, Senator Cassidy, for 

that question. As you said, we do see disparate health outcomes in 

this country, unfortunately especially in minority women. But we 

also see that Black women have a much higher rate of abortion 

than do white women. 

This has not improved their health outcomes. In fact, their maternal mortality rates are worse. Their preterm birth rates are 

worse. And, as I stated, there are more than 160 studies that show 

a link between surgical abortions and preterm birth. In fact, the 

patient whose story between—— 

Senator CASSIDY. Wait, surgical abortion and preterm birth? 

Dr. FRANCIS. Yes, preterm birth in future pregnancies. In fact, 

the Institute of Medicine has acknowledged that surgical induced 

abortions are an immutable risk factor for preterm birth in future 

pregnancies. 

Senator CASSIDY. The increased loss of unborn or miscarriage 

children in some, may be, you’re saying there may be a causation 

associated with their previous history of abortion. 

Dr. FRANCIS. Correct. That’s what the studies suggest. 

Senator CASSIDY. Is there academic literature supporting that? 

Dr. FRANCIS. 100 percent. There are very large systematic reviews, and as I said, the Institute of Medicine has acknowledged 

this as well. 

Senator CASSIDY. When you say in response to Senator Murray 

that someone should be counseled, they should be counseled! 

Dr. FRANCIS. Absolutely. In fact, that patient that I sat with who 

had lost her fifth child due to a condition called cervical insufficiency, where her uterus literally could not hold a baby in, to the 

point of viability anymore. One of the things I thought about is, let 

me just—— 
54 

Senator CASSIDY. Just because we have limited time, and you 

also quote data showing that in countries that have prohibited 

abortion after previously not allowing it, maternal mortality has 

not worsened. Suggesting that this kind of idea that abortion saves 

women’s lives has not been borne out by empiric experience. 

Dr. FRANCIS. Correct. 

Senator CASSIDY. Dr. Linton. In your testimony, you say something along the lines that suggesting that there shouldn’t be any 

restriction, but I go back to that child. Now we know it’s rare for 

someone late term without a reason to have a child like this aborted, but it does occur. And in nine states plus a city in which we 

are currently, it’s allowed. 

Does this child really have no rights whatsoever? I mean, should 

that child, knowing I’m giving you the hypothesis, the mama does 

not have a risk, this is just a decision to abort. 

Is there no consideration to be given of this? Because I have to 

understand, we have to have a dialog, but I’m seeing if there’s actually a common ground here. Your mic, please. 

Dr. LINTON. Thank you, Senator Cassidy for that question. I 

think that these sorts of extreme hypotheticals really give no—— 

Senator CASSIDY. No, these occur and it’s legal. And this side, the 

Democratic aisle actually wants that to be the law of the land. 

Dr. LINTON. I think what you are describing is—— 

Senator CASSIDY. My question is—because now I’m going to just 

say Senator Murray thought Dr. Francis was trying to duck. Maybe 

it’s a yes or no. If it’s not for the health of the mama, the life of 

the mama, et cetera, should this child have no rights in the decision to abort at week 40 when otherwise if the child was delivered, 

the child would be alive. 

Dr. LINTON. Senator Cassidy, respectfully, I don’t think this is a 

question that we can whittle down to a yes or no. I think pregnancy is much more complicated than that. 

Senator CASSIDY. Do they have a right? 

Dr. LINTON. I would say that every situation is unique. And 

when a patient presents—— 

Senator CASSIDY. I will say at this point, the inability to answer 

that is troubling. And with that I yield, because I’m a minute over. 

I’m sorry. 

Senator MURRAY. Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. I was going to ask a question to Dr. Verma. Dr. 

Linton, anything else you wanted to say in response? 

Dr. LINTON. Thank you, Senator. No, I was simply going to say 

that I think every situation is unique and our job as physicians is 

to take all of the information that a patient provides us and give 

them the option to decide what is best for themselves and for their 

bodies. Thank you. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. And I’ll start with Dr. Verma. I want 

to go to Dr. Verma in page one of your testimony, you say, and I 

quote, I’ve seen young moms with worsening medical conditions 

that make their pregnancies very high risk. And couples whose 

deeply desired pregnancies are in the process of miscarrying, be 
55 

turned away or forced to leave their communities to access needed 

healthcare. 

Tell me how that reality that has surfaced most recently. Tell me 

how that reality has affected your ability to care for your patients, 

No. 1. And No. 2, how has your relationship with those patients 

changed? 

Dr. VERMA. Thank you for that question. It has been devastating 

to have to look at patients and say, I can’t help you. I can’t provide 

this care, or I have to wait for you to get sicker before I can potentially provide this care. 

It creates a huge amount of mistrust that patients have for both 

the healthcare system and the government. There is not a line in 

the sand where someone goes from being totally fine to acutely 

dying. It’s often a continuum. And even when state laws like Georgia’s have exceptions for things like medical emergency, it’s unclear 

to us as the doctors when we can intervene. 

If I could just take a second to go back to Dr. Cassidy’s point 

here. I just really want to highlight that the situation of doing an 

abortion at the moment of birth doesn’t happen. As a doctor who 

provides full spectrum reproductive healthcare, including OB care, 

I love taking care of people on labor and delivery. I provide abortion care. That doesn’t happen. 

It is a false hypothetical that is meant to create additional stigma around abortion care. If a patient comes in at 40 weeks, their 

options are a C-section and a vaginal delivery. And this misinformation is really dangerous to our patients. 

I also just want to highlight that 90 percent of abortions in this 

country occur in the first trimester, and less than 1 percent are occurring after 20 weeks, when in most cases, something has gone 

terribly wrong with the patient or the pregnancy. And that person 

really needs that care for some reason. 

Senator CASEY. Doctor, thank you. And I want to turn to Dr. 

Linton for her to make reference to her testimony. I’m looking at 

both pages. The bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3. On page 

2, you pose this question, ‘‘When would an abortion be necessary, 

quote, to save the life of the mother?’’ 

You point to a couple of examples. ‘‘What about a patient who 

presents with heavy bleeding in the first trimester, but there is 

still fetal cardiac activity on ultrasound. Can I remove the pregnancy to stop the bleeding? Do I have to wait for a certain amount 

of blood loss?’’ 

Then you continue at the top of the page with a few more examples. ‘‘A pregnant patient with unresolved congestive heart failure 

from her last pregnancy that puts her at higher risk of dying in 

this pregnancy. What percent chance of death does she need?’’ 

Next question. ‘‘What about a patient with a newly diagnosed 

breast cancer at 8 weeks of pregnancy who cannot start chemotherapy or radiation while she’s pregnant, is delaying her treatment until after delivery a risk to her life?’’ 

Finally, at least of the examples I’m pointing out, ‘‘What about 

a patient with a blood clotting disorder where pregnancy will further increase the risk of a pulmonary embolism or stroke? Is the 
56 

risk of a blood clot enough, or do I have to wait until the actual 

stroke occurs?’’ 

You go on from there with other examples and you say, ‘‘These 

are real patients that my colleagues and I have encountered.’’ I’d 

ask you the same question. How has that reality since the Dobbs 

decision changed your ability to care for your patients and your relationship with your patients? 

Dr. LINTON. Thank you for that. I think I would go back to that 

same idea of this culture now of confusion and fear. All of those 

cases that I mentioned in my oral and written testimony, those are 

real patients that I have encountered, that my partners and I debated, did we meet this, arbitrary phrase from an 1849 law or not? 

Do we need to call lawyers? Do we have to consult other physicians? 

We were not able to just follow the medicine in these cases, and 

adding words such as imminent death or immediate death, that 

doesn’t help clarify anything further. So, I would reiterate what Dr. 

Verma said. These are impacting our ability to care for the patients 

in front of us in a timely and appropriate way. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. 

[Technical problems] 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I want to thank you all for being here for 

your testimony and for sharing deeply personal stories. As has 

been repeated here, and we know to be true, access to, to reproductive care, the issue of abortion itself, decision to terminate a pregnancy is deeply, deeply personal. It’s complicated. 

Clearly there are views that Americans have on this issue that 

present deep and conflicting convictions. And so just the ability, the 

opportunity to have true discussion and conversation about it, I 

think is important. 

I have been pretty clear where I stand on this issue. I think the 

choice to have an abortion should ultimately be in the hands of the 

woman, of the individual, not the government. But I also believe 

that it’s reasonable not to require those who are firmly opposed to 

abortion to support it with their income tax dollars, and that providers who do not wish to be involved in abortion should not be 

forced to do so. 

That’s why I’ve worked with several other colleagues here. Senator Collins, Kaine, Sinema, and I have this bipartisan legislation 

to ensure that the rights that women have relied on for the past 

50-some-odd years, those that were set out Roe and in Griswold are 

protected. I think that they should be protected. 

We establish a Federal right to choose and reaffirm the right to 

contraceptive access without raising concerns about religious freedom and provider conscience protections. So, my position on this is 

clear, but I’m also pretty clear-eyed in recognizing that it’s unlikely 

that the Congress is going to pass legislation that would establish 

clearly that right to abortion, certainly in this Congress. 

But I will tell you, I continue to hear from so many in my state, 

women in Alaska who are concerned about access to abortion, access to reproductive services, even while we are a state where we 
57 

have included in our state’s constitution, a right to privacy that 

protects that access to abortion. 

But what we have seen from decisions across the country in the 

lower 48, is a ripple effect that has come all the way up to the 

North. Planned Parenthood in South Soldotna Alaska location 

closed in anticipation of the trigger laws that were coming online 

that would require more resources in other states. 

We think that we are far enough that we’re protected, that access is protected, but there are implications that move beyond 

those state boundaries. And so women are asking me about access. 

We are a very, very rural state in the first place. Access to providers is limited in the first place. And certainly, access to abortion 

has also been limited. 

I am going to throw this out to anybody on the panel. What can 

we do practically, right now, to help ameliorate some of what we 

are seeing with the impact of the Dobbs decision to ensure that 

women do have access to the care that they need now. 

I wasn’t here when you presented your testimony Ms. Anderson, 

but I can’t imagine how difficult, when you’re already in a very 

stressful situation, the thought that I might have to travel hundreds of miles, extraordinary expenses to travel, but the access to 

care is so limited. I’ve given you no time to answer, but does anybody have anything, Ms. Lopez, go ahead. 

Ms. LOPEZ. I’m happy to answer. Thank you for the question and 

for the describing the experience in Alaska. I mean, I think one of 

the things we can do, Senator, is ensure that we can maintain access to medication abortion, right? Medication, abortion now accounts for two-thirds of all abortions in this country as of 2023. 

In rural areas like yours, it’s incredibly important to have that 

option via telehealth for folks who can’t reach a provider or when 

they live in communities as the doctor said, that don’t have providers given the limited access to providers that they have. And so 

maintaining access to a method that we know is safe and effective 

based on decades of widespread use and study I think becomes 

critically important. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you for saying that. I absolutely 

agree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Murphy. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Senator Murray. Thank you all for 

being here today for your testimony. In Connecticut we often hear 

from our physicians that we should not labor under the belief that 

there are safe states, right? Connecticut is a state today that protects the right to full reproductive healthcare for women, for families. 

But we know what the agenda is. We know that the agenda of 

Republicans in the Senate and Congress is to pass a national abortion ban, and we are potentially months or years away from losing 

those protections in Connecticut. 

But the doctors in my state tell me that this myth of the safe 

state is also due to the fact that the bans that are being passed 

in states that aren’t Connecticut are fundamentally changing the 
58 

practice of medicine and medical knowledge in the United States. 

And so, Senator Sanders started to explore, I think this really important issue, but I wanted to build on his questioning. I think I 

have two questions to ask, and maybe I’ll pose the first one to Dr. 

Verma and Dr. Linton. 

What does it mean that we now have a growing number of states 

that are not training physicians in the suite of services related to 

pregnancy loss? 

What does it mean that we have physicians today that are 

emerging from education in those states that potentially do not 

have the full scope of training on how to manage medical challenges like miscarriages or complications such as infections or hemorrhaging that could stem from pregnancy loss? This seems like a 

significant challenge for our Country. 

How is medical education changing when you have so many residents and medical students who are simply not getting the same 

kind of comprehensive education around reproductive healthcare? 

Dr. VERMA. Thank you for that question. Over 50 percent of OBGYN residencies are in states that have enacted bans or very restrictive abortion laws, and that’s absolutely affecting resident 

training and medical student training. I think it’s important to 

highlight here that it’s the same procedures, the same medications 

that we use when we’re providing abortion care that we also use 

when someone comes in experiencing a miscarriage or experiencing 

a pregnancy loss. 

It’s very concerning that more and more doctors are not going to 

be able to provide all options for care to someone who comes in, for 

example, at 14 weeks bleeding after breaking their water and is 

sick and needs care. 

I absolutely think this is going to affect the ability for people to 

get all types of care across the country. It’s particularly going to 

affect women in rural areas in certain parts of the country. And I 

think that’s really devastating when we’re already experiencing 

such a healthcare crisis and maternal mortality crisis. 

Senator MURPHY. Dr. Linton. 

Dr. LINTON. I agree with Dr. Verma, I will say immediately after 

the Dobbs decision, there are certain requirements that trainees 

have to achieve or things that they have to learn in order to satisfy 

the requirements of residency training, specifically in OB-GYN. 

I can tell you that in the immediate after fact of aftermath of 

Dobbs, trying to find places for those learners to go and receive 

that training was incredibly difficult. As you mentioned, one of the 

safe states or haven states not only are these states being asked 

to take care of an influx of patients, we are also asking them to 

take care of an influx of learners. And all of that is just being compounded and compounded. 

I agree with Dr. Verma. I am concerned about the future of our 

ability of our workforce to be able to care for patients in a variety 

of settings. 

Senator MURPHY. Well, Ms. Lopez, let me ask you that question 

about the broader workforce challenge, because our state reports 

that we are seeing an influx of individuals for training, but what 
59 

we also know is that in states that have passed these abortion 

bans, they have seen a 10 percent decline in applications for OBGYN residencies. 

We’re not seeing a 10 percent increase in our states, in part because we have a set number of residency slots that’s not going to 

change overnight. And so, the net effect here at a moment when 

we were already desperate for more individuals to go into this care, 

seems to be a doubling down of a workforce crisis that is going to 

affect every woman and every family across this country, no matter 

which state you live in. 

Ms. LOPEZ. Absolutely. Thanks, Senator, for that question. Absolutely. And these folks are not just providing abortion care, right? 

They’re providing the full range of reproductive care, which means 

that if you are seeking prenatal care or contraception or IVF or any 

of the number of reproductive care options, you will not have those 

providers available. 

We already have maternity care deserts around this country. 

Those will only increase as well. And I think it also forces doctors 

to think about, do they want to risk criminalization for providing 

this standard medical care, this basic medical care. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Budd. 

Senator BUDD. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank the panel and 

for your stories and testimoneys. So, after the Biden administration’s FDA, it ended in-person dispensing requirements. As I understand, chemical drugs are now routinely available without any 

medical supervision. 

Dr. Francis, can you tell us about abortion reversal pills and why 

it’s important for states to make sure that pregnant women have 

access to information about these pills? Particularly those women 

who are considering abortion? Dr. Francis. 

Dr. FRANCIS. Thank you, Senator Budd, for your question. If I 

can first just highlight the dangers of the, the FDA’s decision to lift 

that in-person dispensing requirement, because that will tie into 

abortion pill reversal as well. 

What that removes from women is any kind of medical oversight. 

It removes the opportunity to document how far along in their 

pregnancy they are. Many women are wrong about how far along 

in their pregnancy they are. And we know that the farther along 

in pregnancy a woman takes those drugs, the higher the risk of 

complications. 

It also removes the possibility of adequately screening for ectopic 

pregnancy. And it also removes the real possibility for a woman to 

receive fully informed consent. That’s a really important part of ensuring that before a woman takes these drugs, that she is in fact 

not only sure of her decision, but aware of the potential risks that 

she’s facing by taking those drugs. 

We know that now women are receiving less counseling, more 

and more women are deciding after taking that first drug, the 

mifepristone pill, that they regret their decision and they desire to 

save their child’s life. 
60 

I know this because I’m a member of the Abortion Pill Reversal 

Network. I’m a provider of that treatment, which involves giving a 

woman natural progesterone, which can counteract the effects of 

the first mifepristone. 

It’s essential that women are aware of this, not only because 

they’re not receiving adequate counseling now before they receive 

these drugs, but so that they know if they make the choice, if we 

really are supportive of women having choices, we should support 

their choice if they decide that they regret their abortion and, and 

would like to save their child’s life. 

Senator BUDD. Thank you. So, you’re saying that there’s more 

dangerous health outcomes with the lifting of the medical supervision, correct? 

Dr. FRANCIS. Absolutely. So, even according to the FDA’s own 

data, 1 in 25 women who take these drugs even with medical supervision, will end up in the emergency room. But I can tell you, 

having gone down to the emergency room in my own hospital many 

times to care for women who are facing life-threatening complications after taking these drugs, it is more common now that they’re 

not being seen in person first. 

Senator BUDD. What’s the window of time from taking the chemical abortion drugs to the reversal? 

Dr. FRANCIS. It’s most effective if it’s taken within the first 72 

hours, but especially within the first 24 hours. So, it’s imperative 

that women have this information so that they know if they change 

their mind that there is a treatment that they can access. 

Senator BUDD. In light of FDA ending in-person dispensing requirements for these drugs, could you talk about how human traffickers are exploiting the lack of protections that used to exist for 

women? 

Dr. FRANCIS. Well we certainly know that there’s a link between 

human trafficking and forced abortions that’s been shown very 

clearly. And it’s also been shown that one of the main points of contact for a trafficking victim to get help is actually with a medical 

professional. 

What we’ve done now is we have removed that point of help for 

a woman, and we’ve also allowed for traffickers, a way for them to 

be able to access these drugs online. It’s been well documented that 

women who are not pregnant are receiving these drugs after going 

online and ordering them. 

I personally talked with a woman who is in her sixties who got 

these drugs. She just wanted to see if she was able to get it, and 

she was able to get these drugs. So, it is now possible for anyone 

to go online, get these drugs. Traffickers could stockpile them so 

that they could force them on their victims, to force abortions as 

they have in the past. 

Senator BUDD. Can you walk me through some of the ramifications of S. 4381 given that it waives protections from the Religious 

Freedom Restoration Act? This is the Contraception Legislation 

that’s before us right now. So, I believe it’s S. 4381 and it waives 

protections from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 
61 

Dr. FRANCIS. Thank you for the opportunity to also clarify, I 

think one misunderstanding of my organization’s position on contraception. So, we actually don’t take an official position on contraception. 

However, we would support the right of any physician to abstain 

from prescribing any medication or participating in any procedure 

that violated either their religious beliefs or violated their own conscience. And if they feel that it violates the oath that they took as 

a physician, then we would support the right for any physician to 

be able to abstain from prescribing those medications. 

Senator BUDD. Thank you, thank you panel. 

Senator MURRAY. Senator Hassan. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you very much, Senator Murray, 

and to the Chair, and Ranking Member Cassidy. Thank you for 

this hearing, and to all of the witnesses, thank you for being here 

today. I’ve received thousands of messages from constituents in 

New Hampshire urging me to protect reproductive freedom since 

the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. 

On that day, the women of America lost a fundamental freedom. 

Every woman should have the right to control her own life, and 

that includes the right to make her own healthcare decisions. And 

with deep respect for my colleagues on the other side of the dais, 

women know what a pregnancy is. 

I too in response to Senator Mullin, I had a miscarriage at 12 

weeks in a pregnancy between the birth of my son and the birth 

of my daughter. It was as devastating for me and my husband and 

our family as Senator Mullin described the devastation that he and 

his family experienced. 

Right now, though, women are facing a danger in our Country 

that is real and it is grave. And that includes women like one of 

my constituents, who was carrying twins and discovered in the 

third trimester that one of the twins could prove fatal to the other. 

Now, think about the decision that she and her physicians had 

to make as they grappled with this very rare, very difficult medical 

challenge and the impact of the abortion ban in New Hampshire 

on her and her physician as they tried to figure out what to do. 

A few questions. Dr. Linton, abortion bans are impacting multiple facets of women’s healthcare. Miscarriage is common, and as 

we’ve just talked about, it can be devastating. One in five pregnancies in the United States results in miscarriage. In places 

where abortion bans are in place, some women experiencing miscarriages who need immediate medical attention are being denied 

the healthcare that they need because doctors fear criminal penalties if they treat these women. 

Can you discuss how abortion bans are jeopardizing the health 

of women who are having miscarriages? 

Dr. LINTON. Thank you for that question. Yes. I think that it 

goes back again to this idea of confusion. These laws are not written by physicians. Many of them are written before the era of modern medicine, before we had ultrasounds and modern diagnoses 

that we use today. So, asking a physician to interpret a law, not 
62 

only through a medical lens, but through a modern lens, can be 

very difficult. 

We are physicians. We are not lawyers. We did not go to medical 

school to make very intricate legal decisions. And so as much as 

sometimes I obviously—my biggest concern is for the patient in 

that situation. And yet at the same time, I can’t necessarily blame 

the physician for having this fear over confusion of whether or not 

they can provide care. We need to focus on letting physicians make 

medical decisions to be able to care for the patients in front of 

them. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. Dr. Verma, abortion bans and restrictions are even making it harder for women to get prenatal care 

that supports the wellbeing of women and their babies. It’s harder 

than ever to recruit obstetricians, as you all have talked about and, 

gynecologists, to practice in rural areas across the country, especially once you factor in abortion bans, including those that could 

put doctors and their patients in jail. 

Dr. Verma, what is the impact of abortion bans on doctors who 

are trying to do their jobs? In particular, how are these bans limiting women’s access to care in rural areas? 

Dr. VERMA. Absolutely. Thank you for that question. Even pre— 

Dobbs I was seeing patients in Georgia that were traveling significant distances to get to a hospital where they could get prenatal 

care to get to a doctor who took Medicaid, if that is their insurance. 

There are multiple barriers that women are already facing. What 

we’re seeing is as more doctors leave these states because of abortion bans, those distances that patients are having to travel are 

getting further and further. 

Patients are also scared. One of the things I do in my practice 

is I do preconception counseling visits where I sit down with a patient who wants to get pregnant and talk to them about how to optimize that pregnancy. So, starting a prenatal vitamin, getting off 

any medications that are dangerous for the pregnancy. 

Since Dobbs, I’m hearing again and again, patients are asking, 

what happens if I get pregnant and something goes wrong? And 

these are patients with desired pregnancies. They are so afraid 

that something is going to go wrong and they won’t be able to get 

the care that they need. And it’s affecting people’s decisions about 

whether to expand their family, even if that’s something they want. 

Senator HASSAN. Absolutely. Thank you. I am almost out of time. 

So, a quick question for Ms. Lopez. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, it’s more critical now than ever that women can access contraception. Most forms of health insurance cover birth control. 

However, there are nearly 1 million women of reproductive age 

who are enrolled in Medicare because of a disability, and they don’t 

have guaranteed access to contraception. I’m working on a bill that 

will close this contraception coverage gap by requiring Medicare to 

cover all forms of contraception, allowing women with disabilities 

to get the type of contraception they want and need. Can you speak 

to the importance of requiring Medicare to cover contraception? 

Ms. LOPEZ. Thank you. And thank you for your championship of 

that legislation. Yes. It’s critical for all people who can become 
63 

pregnant to have access to contraception, so that, they can plan 

their families appropriately. So, that they can determine if, when, 

and how they want to start a family. And that includes folks on 

the margins, including disabled people. So, thank you again. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Marshall. 

Senator MARSHALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Linton, how 

many babies have you delivered in the past month or two? 

Dr. LINTON. I would say probably in the tens to twenties. Okay. 

Senator MARSHALL. Dr. Verma, how many babies have you delivered in the past month or two? 

Dr. VERMA. That’s a good question. I’m terrible at estimating, but 

over my career, thousands. 

Senator MARSHALL. You’re still active, you’re still actively delivering babies. 

Dr. VERMA. Oh, yes, yes, I do labor and delivery shifts every 

week. 

Senator MARSHALL. How often or what type of range would you 

do sonograms on a pregnant woman, let’s say before their fourth 

month or pregnancy, hardly ever, a lot, sometimes? 

Dr. VERMA. Yes, I see patients with all kinds of pregnancies. 

Sure. And usually when a patient comes in and is has a positive 

pregnancy test, I talk to patients that want to continue this pregnancy—— 

Senator MARSHALL. Like, my question is, how often do you use 

sonograms on your routine prenatal visits? Before 16, 8 weeks or 

so? 

Dr. VERMA. We usually do an initial ultrasound to confirm that 

the pregnancy is there. 

Senator MARSHALL. Prenatal pregnancy, first visit, usually you’re 

doing a sonogram to confirm the pregnancy. Dr. Linton, how often 

are you doing sonograms in the first, trimester or early second on 

a routine OB situation? 

Dr. LINTON. To be very clear, I work on labor and delivery and 

I deliver babies, but I do not provide prenatal care. 

Senator MARSHALL. Thank you. So then, Dr. Linton, do you deliver a 23–24-week baby, I’m sure before? 

Dr. LINTON. Yes. 

Senator MARSHALL. When that baby’s delivered, you call in anesthesia, you call the NICU, you call everybody you can in to help 

that baby, right? 

Dr. LINTON. It depends on the clinical scenario. But yes, if it’s 

a desired pregnancy and the patient has voiced the desire for resuscitation, then we have NICU present at that delivery. 

Senator MARSHALL. You’ve also done abortions at 23, 24 weeks 

as well? 

Dr. LINTON. In my training, I provide the standard of care in line 

with medical law. 
64 

Senator MARSHALL. I’m just asking that. I’m not sure. You’re not 

ashamed of it. You’ve done abortions with the baby’s 23, 24 weeks. 

Dr. LINTON. I provide the care that I’m trained to do based on 

the state laws where I live in. 

Senator MARSHALL. Dr. Verma, you’ve done abortions and you’ve 

delivered babies at 23, 24 weeks, full resuscitation, at the same 

time you’ve done abortions on those as well. 

Dr. VERMA. I think what you’re highlighting here is the complexity of what we do. 

Senator MARSHALL. No, that’s not my question. I get to ask the 

question here. I’m not asking for a lecture. Is there any distress in 

your mind or your heart after doing an abortion? On the one hand, 

you’re delivering a baby at 23 weeks and—all out resuscitate the 

baby, you feel horrible. It doesn’t make it, then you do an abortion 

on that same—how does that make you feel? 

Dr. VERMA. I appreciate the question. I think it’s a great question. And again, like I was saying, this is why this is so complicated. I feel that complexity, like I said, I’ve experienced a first 

trimester loss myself, and I found that loss devastating. So, this is 

complicated, but I also know that my patients are able to make 

these really complicated decisions about their health and lives. 

Senator MARSHALL. Thank you very much. Dr. Linton, what 

pregnancy category of drug is mifepristone? 

Dr. LINTON. I’m sorry, Senator. Off the top of my head, I can’t 

tell you the class. 

Senator MARSHALL. Dr. Verma, do you know what type of pregnancy category drug mifepristone is? 

Dr. VERMA. I know mifepristone is incredibly safe based on decades of data about—— 

Senator MARSHALL. Do you know that what category of drug that 

is in pregnancy? 

Dr. LINTON. I can tell you we use Misoprostol for a variety of reasons, including for desired pregnancies, on labor and delivery every 

day. 

Senator MARSHALL. They’re both category X drugs. Okay. I’m 

going to tell you the answer. They’re both categories. So, you-all 

are prescribing these drugs and you don’t know what category of 

drug it is. And why is it a category X drug? Because it causes fetal 

malformations, right? So, it causes fetal malformations. 

Dr. VERMA. Those categories that you’re describing are actually 

based on politics. The mifepristone is safer than Tylenol and 

Viagra. 

Senator MARSHALL. You’re saying that FDA is based upon politics. The FDA is saying this is a category X drug. Would you agree 

with me that these abortion pills are less effective at 14 weeks as 

opposed to 8 weeks? Dr. Linton. 

Dr. LINTON. Yes. I would say that our data does support with increasing gestational ages, that sometimes we have to modify the 

protocol, but generally they’re more effective at earlier gestational 

ages, depending on the protocol you use. 
65 

Senator MARSHALL. What I’m confused about is, and I’ve never 

prescribed this drug, I’ve taken care of lots of patients that have 

complications from these drugs. 

I’m confused why you do a sonogram in a routine pregnancy to 

establish gestational age. That’s the only main reason you’re doing 

pregnancies in the first trimester, early second trimester. Because 

the spine is not developed, the heart is not developed. So, you’re 

basically doing it for gestational age. 

You’re recognizing that so many women come in and they’re a 

month off of their gestational age. So, why wouldn’t you want to 

do a sonogram on every person you see before you prescribe this 

drug, realizing that it has decreased effectiveness at 14 weeks than 

at 10 weeks, so therefore, you’re prescribing a category X drug to 

a pregnancy that has a possibility of not being aborted. 

You’re increasing the risk of fetal anomalies. It just doesn’t add 

up to me. Why are you scared to do a sonogram? Wouldn’t you 

think if you were doing an abortion procedure on a 12-weeker 

versus a baby, that’s actually 20 weeks that it would change everything? I’m just appalled that why you all are so afraid of doing 

sonograms. Thank you so much. And I yield back. 

Senator MURRAY. I’ll allow you time to answer that question, Dr. 

Verma. 

Dr. VERMA. Thank you. And I will say, as a doctor who actually 

does provide this care to patients and is currently practicing, we 

actually often do sonograms if there’s any questions. 

When we see a patient and we’re providing medication abortion 

via telemedicine, we go through screening questionnaires, and if 

there’s any concern, we absolutely do a sonogram. So, that isn’t 

really an accurate representation of how this practice of medicine 

works. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Smith. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you so much. Welcome everybody. I’m appreciating very much all of you being here. I want to just followup a little bit on the question about medication abortion. So, 

mifepristone has been lawfully prescribed to patients since 2000. 

I’ll just ask Dr. Verma, how safe is medication abortion and how 

effective is it? 

Dr. VERMA. Thank you for that question. Medication abortion is 

incredibly safe and effective. In a recent study of 20,000 patients 

that have undergone medication abortion, the rate of adverse 

events was 0.38 percent. So, very, very low. Only about 1 percent 

of those patients came to the emergency room after the process. 

And of those people, about 40 percent didn’t need any treatment. 

We know that medication abortion is incredibly safe and effective. And I also want to highlight how dangerous misinformation 

about the practice of medicine is for our patients, for physicians. 

The American Board of OB-GYNs, which is the board that certifies all of us OB-GYNs at this table, has asserted that abortion 

care is safe, is effective, that medication abortion is safe, that abortion reversal is not something that we can, in good faith offer to 
66 

our patients because it can cause serious risks of bleeding and 

hemorrhage. 

That abortion care does not cause preterm birth. And so I just 

want to highlight some of that misinformation that we’ve heard 

today because it can be very dangerous and contradicts what the 

American Board of OB-GYNs and American College of OB-GYNs 

asserts. 

Senator SMITH. We’ve heard a few things also today about abortion reversal drugs, saline abortions, is there any misinformation 

that you’d like to clear up there as well? 

Dr. VERMA. Yes, thank you for that question. Saline abortions is 

not something that is done in the practice of modern medicine. I 

have been practicing for about a decade, have never seen or heard 

of it. So, that is not a practice that is done. 

For abortion reversal, my colleagues and I actually studied 

whether this is a treatment that we could offer to our patients, because if it was a safe treatment and a patient wanted it, I’d be 

happy to offer it. I am happy to support my patients who want to 

continue a pregnancy, end, a pregnancy, whatever is right for 

them. 

We found we had to stop that study early because people were 

experiencing significant bleeding and were at risk. And so, it is not 

a safe treatment that is available to patients, that is misinformation. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. And maybe I’ll ask Dr. Linton this. 

I’d like to ask you this question about whether telemedicine for 

medication abortion is also safe and effective. 

Dr. LINTON. Thank you for that. I would reiterate what Dr. 

Verma said. When we are thinking about providing medication 

abortion via telemedicine, we have screening questions. And if 

there are any red flags, if someone does not have a regular menstrual cycle, if somebody is concerned about bleeding or cramping, 

then they are not eligible for a medication abortion via telemedicine. 

Of course, our utmost priority in every single patient encounter 

is patient safety. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. Ms. Lopez, thank you so much for 

being here. As you all know, Louisiana recently enacted a law that 

adds mifepristone and misoprostol, which is another drug used to 

manage abortion to the state’s controlled substances list. 

This law would criminalize anyone who possesses the drug without a valid prescription, and it puts it in the same category as 

opioids. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SMITH. I’m just wondering, is there any reason, I mean, 

what do you make of that? And do you believe that medication 

abortion should be put in the same classification as other dangerous controlled substances? 

Ms. LOPEZ. The easy answer is no. And I think my colleagues 

have really reiterated how safe and effective medication abortion is. 
67 

We have two decades of widespread use of study of this drug. So, 

we know that it is safe and effective both here and globally. 

It has also become an incredibly important option for folks to access abortion care. Two-thirds of abortions are now via medication 

abortion. And so any effort to restrict it further is simply an effort 

to make abortion more difficult to obtain. 

Senator SMITH. What impact does that have on women, for example, living in rural communities, people who struggle already to get 

access to care, including women who are marginalized in so many 

other ways and don’t get access to care? 

Ms. LOPEZ. Yes. The folks who are most impacted by all of these 

abortion restrictions are folks who are already marginalized by our 

healthcare system. So, folks of color, the underinsured young folks, 

LGBTQ folks and folks who, as you said, Senator, live in rural communities. And so it makes it harder to get. 

We know now that one in five abortion seekers, is traveling out 

of state to get care. So, it means they’re leaving their home communities at significant financial, logistical, and emotional cost to 

themselves and their families. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Chair Murray. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, as Senator Baldwin is settling in, I just 

want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record seven 

statements in support of abortion access and reproductive freedom. 

Without objection. 

[The following information can be found on page 74 in Additional 

Material:] 

Senator MURRAY. Senator Baldwin. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. I want to thank you, Senator Murray, and Chairman Sanders, for holding this hearing. Because in 

the wake of the overturning of Roe, I think we must keep drawing 

attention to the dire consequences on women’s health across this 

country, and particularly in my home state, States like Wisconsin. 

Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, generations 

of women in this country had only known a country with the right 

to abortion care. And they only knew a country where every woman 

had the freedom to make their own choices about if and when to 

start a family. But when those freedoms were stripped away, Wisconsinites were sent back to the year 1849. They live under a preCivil war criminal ban on abortion care. 

I’ve heard such horrifying stories since that ban went into effect, 

about women bleeding out, about contracting life-threatening infections before receiving care, about women forced to travel hours and 

hours away from their families and support systems to receive care 

for an unviable pregnancy. 

Thankfully, more recently Wisconsin has been able to take important steps to restore abortion services in three communities, 

three counties. We have 72 counties. However, without access to 

care statewide, too many Wisconsinites must still drive hours, take 

time off work, arrange for childcare and face medically unnecessary 

barriers before getting the healthcare they need. And while some 

people, say it should be the state or the Federal Government who 
68 

should decide abortion rights, I believe it’s women who should decide about these issues. 

That’s why we must pass the Women’s Health Protection Act 

which I author, ensuring that women have the right to make 

healthcare decisions and freedom to access abortion care no matter 

where they live. Dr. Linton, and I’m so glad that you are here 

today to share your experience about providing care in Wisconsin. 

Your testimony highlights the impossible landscape that you and 

other providers have been forced to navigate in the wake of the 

Dobbs decision and the effects on real patients in the State of Wisconsin. These stories aren’t hypotheticals. They’re about real people, and I wanted you to tell us a little bit more about how patients 

in Wisconsin were affected immediately after Dobbs. 

How was the Dobbs decision and Wisconsin’s archaic 1849 law, 

and how that has harmed Wisconsinites? And I imagine there were 

people who had appointments for care on the day that the Dobbs 

decision came out. 

Dr. LINTON. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. So, yes, 

you’re exactly right. Because of the 1849 law, this was not a law 

that if Dobbs was passed, then we had 30 days or 90 days or whatever. It was of course, as we’ve mentioned a couple times, there 

have been questions about the enforceability, but because of the 

risks of $10,000 fines in 6 years in prison that went into effect for 

us immediately. 

At 9:10 am, on the 24th of June, we ceased providing care at that 

moment. We had patients in our clinic, we had patients scheduled 

the next day, and staff members had to go out into the lobby and 

tell them, because of something that just happened states away, 

you cannot receive care here today. And it was, it was incredibly 

difficult for patients and staff to try to figure out next steps to help 

them get healthcare. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. I’ve introduced legislation that I 

just described, the Women’s Health Protection Act. This bill would 

guarantee that doctors have the freedom to provide abortion care 

and give patients the ability to receive the care they need nationwide. How would passage of that act impact in Wisconsin and improve care for patients right now? 

Dr. LINTON. Thank you. And as a Wisconsinite, I do want to 

thank you very much for your leadership on this issue. As I mentioned, we have and as you mentioned, we’ve resumed abortion 

care in Wisconsin, but the future of abortion access in Wisconsin 

is anything but clear. 

Even as we are providing abortion care right now, we are still 

practicing under medically unnecessary restrictions, including 24 

hour waiting periods, ban on telemedicine, parental consent law, 

mandatory ultrasounds, et cetera. 

As a physician who sees the impact of these restrictions every 

single day, I can tell you that Federal protections for abortion access will only improve the care that we can provide our patients 

in Wisconsin. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. And what do you want us to know 

about the current state of—tell us how these barriers that you just 
69 

described that are in part of state law, how do they affect patients 

that you see? 

Dr. LINTON. I think first and foremost, they delay care. We know, 

as you mentioned, abortion is only accessible in Wisconsin right 

now in three counties. Our state is a lot bigger than three counties, 

so patients are already having to travel long distances. 

We know that 24-hour bans are often not 24 hours. We have a 

same physician law in the State of Wisconsin. So, the patient has 

to see the same physician for a counseling appointment, to receive 

their medication abortion. So, oftentimes between those two appointments, it can be a week or plus before they can come back. 

And abortion is an incredibly time sensitive procedure. 

All of these additional restrictions are creating hoops and barriers for patients to receive routine or what should be routine 

healthcare. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. Well, like many who spoke of today, 

I think the Dobbs decision was a disaster, both in terms of the 

human consequences of it, but also the radical nature of undoing 

not just 50 years of Roe v. Wade, but a hundred years of 14th 

Amendment precedent, that began with cases like whether parents 

should be able to make their own choices about whether their kids 

go to parochial schools or not, should parents be able to make their 

own choices about educating their children to speak German, 

should people be able to marry who they want. And the Supreme 

Court’s decision to cast out, not just Roe, but then jeopardize all 

of these other rights that we’ve taken for granted for a century, has 

had just a set of horrible consequences. 

I think we need a national protection. I have a bipartisan bill 

that would protect both Griswold and Roe and restore to where we 

are, pre-Dobbs, and make plain, that your rights shouldn’t depend 

on what zip code you live in. Your rights shouldn’t depend on who 

your state legislature is. 

The notion in Dobbs at the Supreme Court said, but don’t worry, 

you can go to your state legislature, when most of the state legislatures in the country, I mean, look at Congress, that’s 26 percent 

women. That’s called comfort, to say women’s rights, well you can 

just count on the legislature to do it right, when women are so 

underrepresented in most of our legislatures, and that’s why we 

have a constitution. 

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is designed to protect 

core freedoms. Even if the majority is against you, there’s something that you should get living in this country, even if you’re just 

one person that the majority can’t trample upon. 

Virginia, thank goodness, is one of the few states that essentially 

still follow Roe. There was the basic framework established by Roe, 

minimal regulation of abortion, pre viability, some more significant 

regulation, post-viability. That’s where Virginia is. Not everybody 

likes that. For some it’s not enough, for some, it’s too much. 
70 

But Virginia has basically done that, and that has put Virginia 

in an unusual position because we’re the last state in the South 

that really still provides women and all the rights that Roe guaranteed to them for half a century. 

Ms. Lopez, you alluded to this in your testimony, but there’s an 

unusual burden in these instances where states like Virginia are 

protecting reproductive freedom, but surrounded by others that 

aren’t. 

There was a story in the Washington Post recently, and I mean, 

here’s an example. A woman drove from Houston, Texas to Fort 

Lauderdale, an 18-hour drive to access reproductive care. She 

hadn’t heard that the Florida 6-week ban had gone into effect, so 

with no other option and 9 weeks pregnant, she then drove an additional 12 hours to Virginia to receive care. 

After she legally was able to terminate her pregnancy at 9 

weeks, she then had a 17-hour drive home back to Texas. I think 

it’s just outrageous that we’re making people do that. But talk a 

little bit about the burden with this patchwork of some states protecting women’s reproductive freedom and many states not. 

Ms. LOPEZ. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for the question. And as I 

stated in my testimony now one in five abortion seekers are traveling outside of their state to places like Virginia to seek care, 

which—— 

Senator KAINE. You said it was 160,000. 80,000 before Dobbs, 160,000 since. 

Ms. LOPEZ. Yes. And what we know is that increases in places 

like your state, and for our providers, that increases the number 

of patients they’re getting. So, both the residents that they’re serving within their own state, and now this influx of patients, which 

means that there’s going to be an increased waiting time. 

If you think about all of the barriers, that someone having to 

leave their home community, figure out how they’re going to pay 

for the procedure, take off work, find childcare, because most people who seek abortion are also parents themselves. Go to an unfamiliar place probably have to wait. And then also have costs on the 

ground, the financial, logistical, and ultimately the emotional barriers are ridiculous and sometimes insurmountable, and ultimately 

could be forcing some people to carry pregnancies to term. 

Senator KAINE. Then finally, this is a hearing that is about how 

abortion bans have created a health care nightmare. That’s the 

title of the hearing. But the Dobbs decision also impacted a whole 

lot of other rights. 

Again, this whole 14th amendment jurisprudence since the mid 

19-teens, including the right to contraception in Virginia, because 

of the logic of the opinion Virginia legislators see a price. And 

Ghazala Hashmi, two friends of mine in the Virginia General Assembly introduced a contraception protection in Virginia law that 

was passed overwhelmingly by the legislature, but our Governor 

vetoed it. 

Are you seeing other states taking the green light of Dobbs, to 

put into question contraception, in vitro and other important health 

care services? 
71 

Ms. LOPEZ. Absolutely. Senator, not just contraception, but efforts to defund Planned Parenthood continue, to limit or defund 

Title X, access to contraception for everyone, other restrictions on 

minors’ access to care, IVF. 

Then we’re also seeing kind of similar efforts around transgender 

and gender affirming care. Those are all interrelated and all efforts 

to limit access to basic reproductive healthcare. 

Senator KAINE. Well, just as I conclude, to my colleagues, Elizabeth Carr, the first child born via IVF in the United States was 

born in Virginia in 1981. And I had her as my guest at the State 

of Union. And she said, when the Alabama Supreme Court rendered the ruling that then led the Alabama health care providers 

to stop IVF, she said, for the first time in my life, I felt like an endangered species. No one should be made to feel that way. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. That will conclude our hearing for 

today. I will give you a closing statement. I want to thank everybody who’s joined us in this discussion. Senator Cassidy, I’ll allow 

you the closing remarks, and I have not yet voted, so keep it short. 

Senator CASSIDY. First, I’d like to ask unanimous consent to 

enter into the record an Op-ed written by Kelly Crawford, founder 

and executive director of Abel Speaks, an organization, created in 

memory of her son who was diagnosed with Trisomy 18. The organization supports families. I think they would feel, just as Senator 

Kaine, they feel as if the children who were born with trisomy 18, 

are being selectively aborted. And that, of course, makes them feel 

like their lives are threatened. 

[The following information can be found on page 114 in Additional Material:] 

Dr. Verma, just a quick question. You rightly point out that rarely is this done. Would you agree, therefore, that it would be reasonable to restrict late term abortions? 

Dr. VERMA. First, late term abortion is not a medical term. We 

tend to say abortion later in pregnancy. 

Senator CASSIDY. Just this, would you find it reasonable that 

after some week, that it would be reasonable to restrict an abortion 

after a certain period of week, given that it saves life the mother 

and such like that. Because I think that’s really the crux. 

Is there any kind of limit that will be placed, if you say, this 

hardly ever happens or never happens, I think was your words. 

Would it be reasonable then to restrict when this would occur? 

Dr. VERMA. When I provide abortion care later in pregnancy, I 

want you to envision a patient who has a nursery designed, a name 

picked out, who Is diagnosed with a terrible fetal anomaly or a 

worsening health condition—— 

Senator CASSIDY. This is not a theoretical, I’m just saying if the 

child is otherwise well, and the mother’s health is well, since you 

are saying this hardly ever happens, is it reasonable to have—— 

Dr. VERMA. I would say abortion at the moment of birth does not 

happen. I also take care of patients who need abortion care later 

in pregnancy for many different reasons—— 
72 

Senator CASSIDY. I respected, by the way, I really did respect you 

speaking of that tension between the week 23 that you would abort 

and the week 23 threes that you would resuscitate. I don’t mean 

to be confrontative, but you’re avoiding the dialog here. 

Dr. VERMA. No, no, I totally hear you. And I’m not trying to be 

confrontational. I’m just trying to highlight what these situations 

actually look like. So, for example, getting an abortion care later 

in pregnancy for someone—— 

Senator CASSIDY. I’m sorry. I’m not going to get an answer that. 

Dr. Francis, will you just finish up on that question, please? 

Dr. FRANCIS. Absolutely. Well I think certainly beyond the point 

where a child can survive outside of his or her mother, there would 

never be a reason you would need to intentionally end that child’s 

life. You would simply deliver that baby, you’d take care of mom, 

and you’d take care of baby in an appropriate way. And I think 

that’s something that I would hope that all of us at this table could 

agree upon. 

Senator CASSIDY. With that I yield. Thank you. 

The CHAIR. Let me just give Dr. Verma, I don’t think that Senator Cassidy gave you the opportunity to respond effectively. Take 

2 minutes to respond and say what you wanted to say. 

Dr. VERMA. I appreciate it. I was just trying to paint a picture 

as a doctor who’s actually sitting with these patients and providing 

this full spectrum of care, what this care actually looks like. So, 

when I’m providing care for a patient, for example, that comes in 

later in pregnancy, a lot of times that’s a patient who’s received a 

terrible fetal diagnosis and is having to make that difficult, difficult 

decision. They have a nursery set up, they have a name picked out, 

and what they need from me as their doctor is support. 

I have some patients that choose to continue that pregnancy and 

deliver at term and other patients who say, that’s too traumatic. 

I can’t do that. And my job is to support them in both of those situations with whatever is right in their life. 

I think as doctors, we all recognize that providing lifesaving care 

sometimes means ending a pregnancy. And to call that care something besides an abortion is an issue of semantics to further a political agenda. 

The care that we’re referring to that sometimes means ending a 

pregnancy, that is abortion care, and that is what we are talking 

about here. And is sometimes necessary lifesaving care for our patients who come in needing this care for a variety of reasons. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you for that comment. And I’ll just say 

that as Dr. Verma said, abortion up until the moment of birth 

doesn’t happen. Abortions that are later in pregnancy are extraordinarily rare, and they occur essentially only when a pregnancy is 

non-viable and the mother risks severe injury or death by remaining pregnant. 

The Democratic position on abortion is simple and mainstream. 

We want to ensure that every woman has the right to receive abortion care, should she need it. The decision to have an abortion is 

extremely personal, and that should be made in every instant by 

the patient and their doctor, not by politicians. That is our position. 
73 

With that, I just want to end this hearing by saying that this is 

the truth. This is a topic that is absolutely not going to go away, 

because women are going to continue suffering under Republican’s 

extreme abortion bans. They’re going to continue to have to travel, 

thousands of miles, and scrape together thousands of dollars to get 

the care when they need an abortion. 

Pregnant women are experiencing health emergencies and will 

continue being turned away from hospitals because politicians have 

made doctors wait until women get sicker and sicker before they’re 

allowed to treat them. 

More and more women will continue being forced to stay pregnant, forced into motherhood against their will. This is not something you forget. It’s not a reality that you ignore. It’s not a status 

quo you get used to. And make no mistake, women are standing 

up, they are speaking out, and they’re fighting back to defend their 

rights that have been ripped away. 

Democrats are going to continue to stand with women, lift their 

voices up like today, and push with everything we’ve got, to restore 

every woman’s right to access abortion care in this country. 

With that, for any Senators who wish to ask additional questions, questions for the record will be due in 10 business days, June 

18th, by 5 p.m. 

Senator MURRAY. The Committee stands adjourned. 

Thank you. 
74 

ADDITIONAL CONTENT 
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 

[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ