`[Senate Hearing 117-896]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                 ______


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-896
 
                     A POST	ROE AMERICA: THE LEGAL
                   CONSEQUENCES OF THE DOBBS DECISION

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 12, 2022

                               __________

                          Serial No. J-117-67

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
      GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT   
         
         


                        www.judiciary.senate.gov
                            www.govinfo.gov
                            
                            
                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 56-947          WASHINGTON : 2024                     
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                   RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking 
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California             Member
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      TED CRUZ, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              BEN SASSE, Nebraska
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California             TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
                                     THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
             Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
      Kolan L. Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page

Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     1
Grassley, Hon. Charles E.........................................     3

                               WITNESSES

Bridges, Khiara M................................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    68
    Responses to written questions...............................    92
Harle, Denise....................................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    48
    Responses to written questions...............................    99
Matzke, Heidi....................................................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    80
    Responses to written questions...............................   102
McNicholas, Dr. Colleen P........................................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    83
Straton, Hon. Juliana, Lieutenant Governor of Illinois...........     6
    Prepared statement...........................................    85
    Responses to written questions...............................   105

                                APPENDIX

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


                     A POST-ROE AMERICA: THE LEGAL



                   CONSEQUENCES OF THE DOBBS DECISION

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2022

                              United States Senate,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice at 9:59 a.m., in Room 
106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, 
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Feinstein, 
Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, 
Padilla, Ossoff, Grassley, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, 
Tillis, and Blackburn.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,

           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Chair Durbin. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee will come to order. I usually defer to the presence 
of Senator Grassley, my colleague on the Committee, but he is 
running a few minutes late, and so he has given me permission 
to begin, and I will certainly recognize him when he arrives.
    A little over 2 weeks ago, the Alito Supreme Court issued 
its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. 
The majority overturned nearly five decades of precedent, 
holding that the United States Constitution does not protect a 
woman's right to an abortion, reversing both Roe v. Wade and 
Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This case represents the first 
time in America's history that the Supreme Court has revoked a 
constitutionally protected right. The first time. As a result, 
a woman's personal decision to make her own reproductive health 
care choices is no longer protected or guaranteed by the 
Constitution.
    In the words of Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer, the 
conservative majority has, quote, ``consigned women to second 
class citizenship.'' In overturning Roe, the Supreme Court has 
unleashed a health care crisis across America. Make no mistake, 
women's health, and in some cases their lives, are at risk.
    Today, the Committee will examine the very real 
consequences of the Court's unprecedented decision. We'll start 
with a video.
    [Video presentation.]
    Since the Dobbs decision, at least 10 States have banned 
abortion. More are expected to join them. The bans we've seen 
include insufficient and confusing exceptions for the life of 
the mother. Many do not even provide exceptions for rape or 
incest. When they do, they are unwieldy and inadequate.
    What exactly do these efforts to ban abortion mean in the 
real world? They mean that a woman facing complications in 
pregnancy could die waiting in the hallway of a hospital 
because a doctor must weigh the risk of jailtime against making 
the best decision for the health of the patient. That means 
that individuals in organizations who help someone travel to a 
State like my State of Illinois, where abortion is legal, may 
face legal liability. Consider a letter sent to the Sidley 
Austin Law Firm last week, by a group of conservative Texas 
lawmakers, which threaten to, quote, ``impose additional civil 
and criminal sanctions on law firms that pay for abortions or 
abortion travel.''
    Some Republican State lawmakers have even sought to punish 
women seeking abortions. For example, in Louisiana, Republican 
legislators sought to advance a bill in May that would have 
subjected women who terminate pregnancy to charges of criminal 
homicide.
    In his majority opinion, Justice Alito claims that by 
overturning Roe and Casey, the Court was simply returning power 
to decide how abortion may be regulated to the States. But 
Dobbs raises many questions with no answers, leaving health 
care providers and patients to navigate new restrictions that 
will likely and rightfully face further constitutional 
challenge. For example, in his concurring opinion, Justice 
Kavanaugh insists that the State cannot infringe on the, quote, 
``constitutional right to interstate travel,'' close quote. It 
seems some State Republican lawmakers didn't get the message. 
They are proposing bills that will turn their State borders 
into Checkpoint Charlies for patients seeking abortions out-of-
state.
    In a post-World War America, it is not only abortion rights 
that are in peril. Other constitutional rights are under 
threat, and that's not my conclusion. It's Justice Clarence 
Thomas' conclusion. According to him, your constitutional right 
to privacy is a fiction. In his concurring opinion, Justice 
Thomas declares that a court should, quote, ``eliminate the 
constitutional rights to birth control, marriage equality, and 
consensual relationships between LGBTQ people,'' close quote. 
This radical, regressive vision for America is eroding the 
Court's institutional integrity.
    This comes in the aftermath of Republican Leader 
McConnell's blocking President Obama's right to fill the 
Supreme Court vacancy. President Donald Trump pledged to 
appoint nominees who would've overturned Roe v. Wade. That was 
the box each one of them had to check with the Federalist 
Society before they could appear before this Committee.
    Today, three in four Americans say they have lost faith in 
the Supreme Court, a record low. It's easy to see why. Families 
are living in fear that some of their most cherished rights are 
now on the conservative chopping block. So, what are we going 
to do to protect these rights? What are we going to do to 
defend women who have already had their rights revoked?
    We know the Republican plan, win control of Congress and 
impose a Federal ban on abortion. The Republican leader said as 
much. Democrats have a different plan. Protect your rights by 
entering a --entering a Federal statutory right to abortion. In 
fact, that's exactly what the vast majority of Americans 
support, keeping access to abortion legal. A woman's choice to 
get an abortion is her choice alone. Politicians have no 
business sitting in the waiting room with the doctor. With 
that, I'll turn to Ranking Member Grassley for his opening 
statement.

             STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,

             A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

    Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very 
important hearing. I cast my first pro-life vote February 1972 
as a Member of the Iowa House of Representatives. There was a 
motion before the House to repeal Iowa's ban on abortion. I was 
1 of 44 people in a 44 to 44 vote, that voted not to repeal 
that bill, and obviously on a 44 to 44 vote, it didn't happen. 
The next year, we had Roe v. Wade, and it was never an issue 
with Iowa legislature until potentially it could be now as a 
result of Roe's overturn.
    We're here today because the Supreme Court has corrected a 
wrong that has impacted millions of lives since 1973. We're 
here because the Supreme Court, in a meticulous and well-
reasoned opinion, returned the decision of abortion back to the 
States. For many Americans this decision is about far more than 
correcting a flawed legal analysis in Roe. It means protecting 
the rights of the unborn. This ruling doesn't ban the practice 
of abortion, but instead empowers the people, through their 
accounted elected Representatives to make common sense policy 
decisions. It takes policy out of the hands of unelected 
judges.
    I understand with a decision of this magnitude comes 
differences of opinion and robust debate on the next steps. 
That's okay, and I welcome that. We live in a democracy, and 
with differences of opinion and passion for policies, all of 
that followed by thoughtful debate, can lead us to the best 
outcomes for the American people.
    However, the treatment of Supreme Court Justices, pregnancy 
centers, and conservative women has been outrageous since Dobbs 
decision was leaked. Remember this: 8 out of 10 Americans do 
not support abortion on demand, right up to the time of birth.
    First, regardless of views on this issue, we should all 
respect the role of our impartial Judiciary and the decisions 
that it renders. Seeking to intimidate or attack the Court or 
undermine its credibility because of an outcome that you don't 
agree with is dangerous--dangerous, and that's not an answer.
    Justices have had their addresses published online, have 
been subjected to illegal pressure campaigns at their family 
homes, and one Justice was even the victim of an attempted 
assassination. I've called on the Justice Department to enforce 
the law and protect the Justices and their families from these 
very real threats. The lack of a response from both the Justice 
Department and the White House is extremely, extremely 
disappointing.
    Along with the threats against the Justices, threats 
against pro-life, and crisis pregnancy centers have 
dramatically increased since the leak of the Dobbs decision, by 
pro-abortion extremists such as Jane's Revenge and Ruth Sent 
Us. They've been--there's been at least 40 violent attacks on 
crisis pregnancy centers, religious institutions, and other 
pro-life entities since the Dobbs leak, and before the Court 
even issued its final opinion.
    [Poster is displayed.]
    The first pictures I have with me is a crisis pregnancy 
center in North Carolina that was vandalized with pro-abortion 
and pro-Antifa graffiti. That is in the corner--in the corner 
is the Antifa sign. Another one in Oregon was set on fire, 
causing significant damage, as you can see behind me. I pray 
for these centers and the thousands of patients they serve 
every day.
    I encourage all of my Colleagues, as well as myself, to 
condemn the violence and vandalism. I want to ensure that these 
violent attacks are recognized by the FBI, and are being 
properly investigated for what they are, cases of abortion 
related violent extremism. Let me be clear, very clear, threats 
and violence are not the answer.
    I also want to bring your attention to the incredible group 
of women that we have here with us today. We know women have 
been the center of the pro-life movement, and tirelessly 
advocating for the lives of the unborn and the well-being of 
mothers everywhere. I'd like to introduce to you a few of these 
women in addition to our witnesses, who I'll introduce in a 
moment.
    We have here with us today, Dr. Christine Francis. Dr. 
Francis is an OB/GYN in Indiana. She's chair of the Board of 
the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists and a board member of the Indiana Right to Life. 
Dr. Francis spent time working with orphans in Romania and 
Burma and working for 3 years as the only OB/GYN at a mission 
hospital in rural Kenya. She has dedicated her life, 
professionally and personally, to treating women, protecting 
the lives of the unborn, and educating people on the dangers of 
the abortion industry. We are also fortunate to have someone 
like her in the practice of medicine.
    Also, Dr.--also, Catherine Gleen Foster--Catherine Glenn 
Foster with us, who has in the past been a witness before this 
Committee. She serves as president and CEO of the Americans 
United for Life. Catherine often shared her story of having an 
abortion at 19, due to the extreme emotional and psychological 
pressure she faced. Catherine felt alone after her decision. 
I'm sorry for the loss that you experienced, Catherine, and I 
hope that we can do better to give young women the love and 
support they deserve, no matter what.
    Janet Durig is the executive director of the Capitol Hill 
Pregnancy Center, just down the road from us a short way. 
Capitol Hill Pregnancy Center provides compassionate care, as 
well as complete, accurate information pertaining to pregnancy 
and pregnancy options. They, too, also have dealt with 
vandalism of their clinic. However, they continue to provide 
services such as counseling and childbirth and parenting 
classes. Thank you, Janet, for the work that the center does to 
serve those in the DC area who need support the most.
    I also want to thank representatives of the incredible 
groups that we have here today, March for Life, Susan B. 
Anthony List, Concerned Women of America, Iowa Catholic 
Bishops, Family Research Council, to name a few. You all also 
do incredible work in zealously advocating for the lives of the 
unborn, as well as women's health, and for that I thank you.
    Let's have a productive discussion today, on how we can 
best support women and families coming forward. But, as I said 
before, threatening Justices, pregnancy centers, and churches 
is not the answer. I hope the extreme rhetoric that gives rise 
to this violence won't be a part of our conversation today. Mr. 
Chairman, I'd like to request to enter into the record the 
statements from Live Action and the American Association of 
Pro-Life and Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Without objection. Let me start on a positive 
and bipartisan note, in light of your opening statement, 
Senator Grassley. I have stated time and again, political 
violence, in furtherance of any cause is unacceptable, period. 
No matter who commits it, no matter what theology fuels it. I 
condemn all violence and threats of violence in the strongest 
possible terms, whether the targets are pregnancy counseling 
centers or abortion clinics, period. Violence is never an 
appropriate form of protest.
    This Committee has passed legislation that will protect our 
judges, and I'm glad we did it. I'm sorry to say that one of 
the most important bills, the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security 
and Privacy Act, which would give the Supreme Court Police 
greater discretion in protecting the Justices and their 
families, among other provisions to protect judges, has been 
held up on the floor. I can say that the person holding it up 
is a junior Senator, Republican Senator from Kentucky. I think 
it's a serious mistake. Lives are at risk as we fail to put 
this into law and to give even more resources to the judiciary 
to protect their members.
    Today we welcome five witnesses, and I thank them for 
joining us. Before we swear them in, I'll briefly introduce the 
Democratic witnesses, then turn to Senator Grassley to 
introduce the Republican witnesses.
    Our first witness is Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana 
Stratton. She's the 48th Lieutenant Governor in the history of 
our State. She previously served as a Member of the Illinois 
House of Representatives, and I'm grateful for you traveling 
here, Lieutenant Governor.
    Professor Khiara Bridges, professor of law at the 
University of California Berkeley School of Law. I also want to 
thank Professor Bridges' mother, Deborah, who is here 
celebrating her birthday. I understand she's in the audience 
and we welcome her.
    Dr. Colleen McNicholas is an OB/GYN and the chief medical 
officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis region, in 
Southwest Missouri. Thanks for joining us today, Dr. 
McNicholas.
    Let me turn to Senator Grassley, before I administer the 
oath, for his introductions.
    Senator Grassley. My first person is Denise Harle. Ms. 
Harle serves as senior counsel Alliance Defending Freedom, 
where she is director of the Center for Life. In this role, Ms. 
Harle leads her team's litigation and advocacy effort to defend 
pro-life legislation around the country. She also networks with 
pro-life allies, speaks publicly on behalf of her organization, 
and works to defend the First Amendment freedoms of pro-life 
health care professionals and pregnancy resource centers. Since 
joining ADF, Ms. Harle took the primary role in drafting the 
briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court in NIFLA v. Becerra, resulting 
in a free speech victory for California pro-life pregnancy 
centers. We welcome you.
    Next, we have Heidi Matzke. Ms. Matzke is executive 
director of the Alternative Pregnancy Center and has worked 
with them for 7 years. The center is a non-profit, pro-life 
women's medical clinic, which seeks to address the holistic 
aspect of an unplanned pregnancy, including the medical, 
emotional, material, and spiritual needs of the mother. These 
services are free through the clinic. The center provides 
pregnancy tests, ultrasound, abortion pill reversals, STD 
testing and treatment, prenatal care, gynecological care, 
abortion recovery classes, and contraceptive education. Prior 
to working at the center, Ms. Matzke worked as director of 
health services for the Christian Financial Strategies. We 
welcome you, as well.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Let me explain 
the traditional procedure before the Committee. Each of the 
witnesses will be given 5 minutes for an opening statement. 
Then Members will be recognized in order for 5 minutes of 
questioning. Before we proceed though, I ask the witnesses to 
please stand and raise their right hand for the administration 
of an oath.
    [Witnesses are sworn in.]
    Let the record reflect that all five witnesses answered in 
the affirmative. Now for their opening statements, I first 
recognize Lieutenant Governor Stratton. Please proceed.

              STATEMENT OF HON. JULIANA STRATTON,

            LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, STATE OF ILLINOIS,

                     SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

    Lt. Gov. Stratton. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman 
Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and the distinguished Members 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for the opportunity to 
testify today. I'm Juliana Stratton, Lieutenant Governor of the 
great State of Illinois, and I use she/her pronouns.
    Since coming into office, Governor J.B. Pritzker and I have 
been focused on the health, safety, and access to opportunities 
for all women of Illinois, of all backgrounds and ages. One way 
that we've worked to make that a reality is by preserving and 
protecting legal abortion in Illinois. In 2019, Governor 
Pritzker signed the Reproductive Health Act, which enshrined 
reproductive rights into State law, repealed outdated laws 
criminalizing abortion, and requires private health insurance 
plans to cover abortion as the vital reproductive health 
procedure that it is.
    We made a vow that our State will be a beacon of hope for 
all. This was a promise that we made to the people of Illinois, 
and I come before you today because people throughout the 
entire Midwest are relying on our commitment to protect and 
preserve women's rights, namely, the right to an abortion.
    It is no secret that Illinois stands out as one of the only 
States in the U.S. heartland, where our laws on legal abortion 
have not been impacted by the Supreme Court's overturning of 
Roe v. Wade. We are not just an oasis of reproductive care but 
an island, and here's what that looks like. It looks like 
disenfranchised, yet determined patients coming from every 
surrounding State, but also from as far away as Tennessee, 
Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida. It looks like the 
entire staff of our State's abortion clinics fielding phone 
calls for appointments, because the number of out-of-state 
patients have doubled since Roe v. Wade was overturned. That's 
on top of the nearly 10,000 women, who already came to Illinois 
seeking abortion care, according to 2020 data by the Illinois 
Department of Public Health.
    In the coming months and years, these numbers will 
inevitably increase, and sadly, too, will the preventable 
suffering and pain of women and families across the Nation, 
facing the negative ramifications of a post-Roe America. 
Because of the history of systemic racism, we know that 
inequities are amplified within the Black and Latinx 
communities. A post-Roe America will be devastating for Black 
women, who's maternal mortality rate is already two to three 
times higher than that of white women, because of structural 
racism and misogyny. One study projects that without safe and 
legal access to abortions, that number will increase by over 30 
percent among Black women, and nearly 20 percent for Hispanic 
women. Let's take a moment to just let that sink in.
    We are facing a future rife, with needless death, despite 
61 percent of Americans believing abortion should be legal in 
most or all cases, according to a Pew Research Center survey 
conducted in March 2022. It's hard to overestimate just how 
devastating the outcome of this ruling is and will be, despite 
our years of preparation. Before the threats to Roe v. Wade 
were fully realized, Illinois was proactive, upholding bodily 
autonomy and protecting the right to an abortion. Still, the 
overturning of Roe v. Wade has sent us down a dark, agonizing 
path. The Supreme Court's decision does not, quote, ``leave 
abortion up to the States,'' when every State will be impacted. 
To be clear, this means that every city, town, county, urban, 
suburban, and rural, and our rural and unincorporated areas 
already experience inequities when it comes to accessing health 
care overall. The weight of this ruling will surely be felt 
across State borders.
    In Illinois, and in States like ours, we are bracing for 
what is to come, as these diverse communities across the Nation 
turn to us. Governor Pritzker called on the President to move 
forward on key items that will address how States like ours 
will be affected, like creating a centralized hub for providers 
and patients to ease the burden on facility capacity amid 
higher demand. Most of all, Illinois and other States with 
legal abortion need more access to Federal money to support 
demand.
    I commend President Biden for the steps he has taken to 
safeguard access to reproductive care through executive order 
on Friday, which included actions to expand access to 
contraceptives. This is a great start. In Illinois, all hands 
are on deck, as we brace for what is coming, because we know we 
are the only lifeline for so many, after so much has been taken 
away from women, from the American people. I say this, not just 
as the Lieutenant Governor of Illinois, but as a mother of four 
daughters, my daughters who now have fewer rights than I had.
    In Illinois, excuse me--based on Justice Clarence Thomas' 
concurring opinion, it is likely this may not be the last 
rights that will be stripped from future generations, as access 
to contraceptives and the right to love and marry who you 
choose, have already come under threat with the overturning of 
Roe v. Wade. In Illinois, we will not go back. We will not be 
silent or stand on the sidelines, and I thank Governor 
Pritzker, Illinois' legislative leaders, and our State's 
General Assembly, and all the community advocates who have 
joined forces to ensure just that. We already know how 
dangerous it is to turn back the clock of progress, and I ask 
each of you, as leaders, help us push forward, before it's too 
late. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Lieutenant Governor Stratton 
appears as a submission for the record.]
    Chair Durbin. Thank you for your statement, Lieutenant 
Governor. We extended the period for your statement a little 
bit, and the same courtesy will be extended to all of the 
witnesses. Ms. Harle.

               STATEMENT OF DENISE HARLE, SENIOR

               COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER

             FOR LIFE, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM,

                      TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

    Ms. Harle. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and 
Members of the Committee, I'm Denise Harle, senior counsel and 
director of the Center for Life at Alliance Defending Freedom. 
The Dobbs decision provides tremendous hope for women and 
unborn children across this country. For the first time in half 
a century, the people, through our elected representatives, 
have the legal authority to affirm the dignity of women and 
fully protect unborn babies. The Supreme Court was correct to 
overrule its egregious decision in Roe v. Wade, where seven 
male justices insulted women's dignity by saying that 
motherhood forces upon us a distressful life and future.
    I am here today with my own mom and my precious 4-month-old 
baby girl, and I have two children at home. I join with 
millions of mothers nationwide in saying that the ruling in Roe 
was a shameful, dehumanizing, and false characterization of the 
role that women and moms hold in our society. I know that every 
woman's story is unique, and for that some women finding out 
you're pregnant is very difficult and unwelcome news. But 
pregnancy is not a barrier to success, and motherhood doesn't 
ruin a woman's chance to have a happy, fulfilled life. To say 
otherwise is demeaning and degrading.
    Dobbs was also a victory for the Constitution. As the 
decision explains, nothing in our Constitution's text, history, 
or structure supports a so-called right to abortion. Even 
constitutional law scholars who are pro-abortion have admitted 
this. Harvard Law Professor Laurance Tribe said Roe was a 
verbal smoke screen, and that the substantive judgment on which 
it rests is nowhere to be found. The late pro-abortion icon, 
Justice Ginsburg, called Roe a heavy-handed judicial 
intervention that was difficult to justify, and legally, 
scientifically, morally, it is.
    Under the Roe regime, the United States became an extreme 
outlier in abortion law. Seventy-five percent of nations around 
the world don't permit elective abortion at all, or at most 
limit it to 12 weeks. Under Roe, the United States joined a 
handful of countries, including human rights abusers China and 
North Korea, to allow abortion on demand after 20 weeks of 
pregnancy.
    The Dobbs decision unshackled States from this judicial 
power grab in Roe, that was based on falsehoods about history 
and science. We can apply scientific knowledge that we've 
gained since that infamous decision. Medical advancements in 
the past 50 years have made it crystal clear that States have a 
compelling interest in protecting unborn children at every 
stage of development. With the help of ultrasounds, we've 
learned that babies in the first 12 weeks develop heartbeats 
and brainwaves. They move around and kick. They can hiccup, 
suck their thumbs, even taste what their mom eats.
    It's entirely reasonable and right for Americans to protect 
these tiny humans, and the American citizens are prepared to do 
so. In fact, reports that Americans supported Roe are extremely 
misleading. Roe allowed for abortion up to the moment of birth, 
but nearly 90 percent of Americans oppose abortion in the third 
trimester, let alone until birth.
    Now, for the women who find themselves overwhelmed by the 
prospect of motherhood, there is hope, and it doesn't involve 
destroying the baby for a fee. We need to be pointing pregnant 
moms toward real help. Thousands of pregnancy resource centers 
around the Nation stand ready to support women at no cost, with 
tangible services, both during and after a mother's pregnancy. 
Many States are also pouring resources into creative programs 
to ensure that every pregnant mom can access the critical 
support she needs. Churches, adoption agencies, and other civic 
organizations are redoubling their efforts.
    Dobbs marks a new day for our country, the opportunity to 
build a better society than the one the Court forced upon us in 
1973. A society that not only affirms that life is a human 
right, but that embraces motherhood by providing opportunities 
for women to thrive as moms. We as a Nation can no longer use 
Roe as an excuse to treat pregnancy as a woman's problem that 
she alone must solve. It's time to implement innovative support 
systems and empower women to pursue full and flourishing lives 
for their families and themselves. The post-Roe legal landscape 
is changing as we speak, and I am so grateful that we are 
entering a new era where the American people have the 
opportunity to lead the world in upholding the dignity of 
women, of their children, and of human life. Thank you for your 
time.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Harle appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Chair Durbin. Thank you. Professor Bridges.

                STATEMENT OF KHIARA M. BRIDGES,

              PROFESSOR OF LAW, UC BERKELEY SCHOOL

                  OF LAW, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

    Professor Bridges. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member 
Grassley, and Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My 
name is Khiara Bridges, and I am a Professor of Law at the 
University of California Berkeley School of Law. I am here 
today to explain how the U.S. Supreme Court's radical decision 
in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to take away 
constitutional protection for reproductive freedom harms people 
of color.
    In Dobbs, the Court upheld Mississippi's ban on abortions 
after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and in the process, overturned Roe 
v. Wade. Dobbs declares that Roe erred when it interpreted the 
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to protect a right to 
terminate a pre-viability pregnancy insofar as that clause only 
protects rights that are, quote, ``deeply rooted in the 
Nation's history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of 
ordered liberty'', end quote.
    For the Dobbs majority, the country's laws in 1868, the 
year that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, determine 
whether abortion rights can be so characterized. After 
canvassing abortion regulations in 1868, the majority concludes 
that abortion rights are not part of the Nation's history and 
tradition. The painfully obvious point to make is that people 
with the capacity for pregnancy were not part of the body 
politic during the period of the Nation's history that the 
majority believes is decisive of the constitutional inquiry. 
Women cannot vote in the country for another half a century 
after 1868. Because women could not participate in the 
democratic process, one could reasonably assume that their 
interests were not reflected in any of the Nation's laws, 
including the criminal laws that the Dobbs majority reads as 
foreclosing a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. 
Thus, the majority's decision to privilege the year 1868 and to 
attempt to define the meaning of the Constitution by looking at 
the Nation's practices during that time is a decision to 
privilege an era characterized by the formal exclusion of 
people with a capacity for pregnancy.
    People of color specifies--people of color, specifically 
Black people, will feel the impact of the Court's decision in 
Dobbs, more than any other racial group. Black people's 
abortion rate is three to four times white people's abortion 
rate. This is a direct result of Black people's higher rate of 
unintended pregnancy, which in turn, is due to higher rates of 
poverty among Black people.
    A frequently cited reason that individuals give for 
terminating an unintended pregnancy is that they cannot afford 
to have a child at that time. Thus, the unequal burden of 
poverty that Black people bear, renders them more likely to 
face an unintended pregnancy in the first instance, and in the 
second instance, to lack the funds thought necessary to carry 
the pregnancy to term and raise the child. As such, when States 
are permitted to use the criminal or civil law to make abortion 
inaccessible, States render unavailable a service upon which 
Black people desperately rely.
    Further, the number of people of jails and prisons has 
grown tremendously since 1973. The incarcerated population has 
quadrupled in the last 40 years, with close to 2 million people 
confined in jails and prisons today. This is to say that the 
country currently is much more willing than it was in the 
generations that proceeded Roe to turn to jails and prisons to 
address its social problems, both real or imagined. Moreover, 
there now exists precedent for punishing people for poor 
pregnancy outcomes, a precedent that simply did not exist 
during the era of criminal abortion laws that proceeded Roe.
    In the 1980's, during the crack/cocaine scare, States began 
to use creative interpretations of the criminal law to 
prosecute Black people who used a drug during their 
pregnancies. Arrests and prosecutions for substance use during 
pregnancy continue to the present.
    Further, criminal punishment of pregnant people who have 
suffered poor birth outcomes occur outside of the context of 
substance use. For example, prosecutors brought charges against 
a depressed pregnant woman who attempted suicide and suffered a 
miscarriage as a result. I could go on and on. Although a 
number of abortion rights opponents currently claim to consider 
the pregnant person who has an abortion to be a victim, I am 
skeptical about the sincerity or endurance of this belief in 
light of our current practice of punishing pregnant people for 
their pregnancy outcomes.
    Importantly, even if Black people attempted to self-manage 
abortion despite the threat of criminal punishment as 
frequently as people of other races, we should fully expect 
that Black people will be more frequently and more harshly 
punished for breaking the law. We should have this expectation 
because as a general matter, Black people are more likely than 
their non-Black counterparts to be arrested, prosecuted, 
indicted, and convicted for the same conduct. And they serve 
longer sentences than their non-Black counterparts, even when 
controlling for relevant factors.
    In conclusion, I cannot overstate the level of harm and 
chaos that the Dobbs decision has already caused people seeking 
abortion care providers and practical support organizations. 
The crisis and access to abortion care in the United States 
highlights the need for a bold, holistic, and intersectional 
policy response, that puts within its range of vision 
everything from the need for comprehensive, paid family and 
medical leave, to laws that urgently protect the right to both. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Professor Bridges appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Professor. Ms. Matzke, did I 
pronounce your name correctly?
    Ms. Matzke. Yes.
    Chair Durbin. Please proceed.

              STATEMENT OF HEIDI MATZKE, EXECUTIVE

                DIRECTOR, ALTERNATIVES PREGNANCY

                 CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Matzke. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grassley, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you so much for the privilege 
and honor of being here today. My name is Heidi Matzke, and I 
am the executive director of Alternatives Pregnancy Center in 
Sacramento, California.
    I came into this role by a roundabout road, that began in a 
very emotional place. A number of years ago, on the day my 
sister and I were supposed to leave for college, she showed up 
at the door and collapsed on the ground. I said, ``What's 
wrong?'' as I looked into her eyes. She looked up at me and she 
said, ``I'm pregnant.'' I still remember the fear in her eyes. 
I see that fear almost every single day in the eyes of women 
who come into our center. They need help, they need someone to 
talk to, and they need hope. I know because my sister needed 
all of those things. Our family needed all of those things, and 
we found them in a local pregnancy care center, and years 
later, because I wanted to give that same help, and hope, and 
support to others, I became the Director at Alternatives.
    As an organization of mostly women serving women, the staff 
of our clinic offers our patients compassionate, holistic care, 
ministering in whatever gentle ways we can to their physical, 
emotional, and even spiritual needs. So, it grieves me that 
since the Supreme Court announces Dobbs decision, a great deal 
of misinformation has been spread about who we are, and what we 
do.
    Let me share with you some of the facts. Our clinic is one 
of nearly 3,000 pregnancy care centers serving women across 
America. Each year, hundreds of thousands come to our clinics, 
looking for free medical care, emotional support, and practical 
resources that will enable them to carry their pregnancies to 
term. Our clinic alone, in Sacramento, provides over $1 million 
of free medical services each year to women who come to us. We 
charge them nothing. That means we never financially benefit 
from any choice a woman makes. We make no profit of any kind 
off the women who turn to us for help. We offer pregnancy 
tests, ultrasounds, prenatal care up to 24 weeks, well-woman 
visits, we test and treat for sexually transmitted diseases. We 
offer abortion pill reversal services, abortion recovery 
counseling, and parenting classes. And if finances are a 
problem, we have diapers, wipes, baby formula, baby food, baby 
clothing, baby supplies. And if a woman needs a hotel room, we 
provide that as well. We pay for all of that. It doesn't matter 
who she is, where she comes from, or what her past is.
    At our center, all medical services are provided by a staff 
of licensed medical professionals, including doctors, nurses, 
nurse practitioners, and medical assistants. They are deeply 
compassionate people because most of them have experienced 
abortion for themselves. Our OB/GYN doctor was an abortionist.
    When a woman comes in, so afraid of what an unplanned 
pregnancy will mean for her life, her ambitions, her 
relationships, we do not urge her, in that moment, to make any 
decision. We listen, we try to hear her heart, we offer 
professional services and emotional support. Whether she 
chooses parenting, adoption, or abortion, we will continue to 
be there for her, for years if necessary. Many women choose 
abortion because they lack the resources and support they need 
to confidently choose to parent. Over the last 5 years, 
American pregnancy care centers have served nearly 2 million 
women who were faced with an unplanned pregnancy and wanted an 
alternative to abortion.
    Yet, pregnancy care centers from coast to coast are being 
targeted for violent assaults, of vandalism, and hateful 
attacks online, and in the media. Just last week, as the 
exhibit shows, a man approached our care center with an armed 
machete. We have been forced to hire 24-hour onsite security. 
We have had to reinforce doors and bulletproof our walls. We 
have had to paint our building with anti-graffiti coating. 
We've added cameras, armed our staff with pepper spray, and 
stopped running our mobile clinic because of threats of 
violence. We have been forced to expend valuable resources, 
resources for women of up to $150,000, just to protect ourself. 
Why? Because we offer free care to women.
    What we do, though, is worth the risk. Every community 
needs a place for women facing unplanned pregnancies who are 
seeking dependable medical resources in a safe, caring 
environment during one of the most difficult times of their 
lives. ``You are pregnant,'' three of the most powerful words a 
woman will hear in her life. For some, the words bring 
incredible joy, and for others, incredible fear. Both deserve 
support. I thank you for the privilege of sharing with you a 
brief glimpse of hope, service, and compassion our pregnancy 
centers, and so many others across this great country provide 
to women every single day.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Matzke appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Matzke. Dr. McNicholas.

            STATEMENT OF DR. COLLEEN P. McNICHOLAS,

           CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, PLANNED PARENTHOOD

             OF THE ST. LOUIS REGION AND SOUTHWEST

                 MISSOURI, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

    Dr. McNicholas. Thank you, Chair Durbin. My name is Dr. 
Colleen McNicholas, and I use she/her pronouns. I'm a board-
certified OB/GYN, trained to provide the full spectrum of 
sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion care. I 
practice in Missouri and Illinois, two States where people are 
living such vastly different realities, that it should be 
considered by each one of you to be un-American. On June 24th, 
when the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, it effectively 
created two nations. One, where those whose reproductive 
freedom belongs to themselves, and another, whose reproductive 
freedom belongs to a small group of politicians who have 
effectively appointed themselves as decision-makers over our 
bodies, our lives, and our futures.
    Today, I'm here to speak for patients, the patients I serve 
every day, people from across the Midwest and South, who 
navigate a ridiculous obstacle course just to access basic 
care. While it may take us years to understand how the Supreme 
Court decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson case will have impacted 
our public health outcomes, we already know, just 18 days into 
this post-Roe reality, how it's disastrously complicating 
people's lives and putting doctors in impossible situations.
    Since ceasing abortion care at our health center in St. 
Louis, which was the last remaining abortion clinic in 
Missouri, our health center in Illinois just across the 
Mississippi River has cared for patients who have traveled as 
far as a thousand miles each way. Each one of those patients 
has told me they had no choice but to travel hours and hours 
for care. Almost overnight, our Illinois clinic has seen 
appointments triple, and that's already on top of a double 
booked scheduled we were sustaining in the wake of Texas and 
Oklahoma's abortion bans.
    As we've long said, overturning Roe will not stop the need 
for abortion. The Supreme Court's decision has already pushed 
people, the people each one of you represents, into extreme and 
sometimes dangerous circumstances, in order to access one of 
the safest and most common health care procedures.
    In Missouri, and several other States, abortion is banned 
except in a medical emergency. In other words, in order for 
doctors to avoid prison time, instead of treating a patient 
before their health condition becomes life threatening, doctors 
must now contemplate how sick is sick enough before providing 
lifesaving abortion care. People will suffer unnecessary harm 
as doctors wait for permission from hospital lawyers to tell 
them that they can proceed. In some circumstances, the abortion 
care will come too late.
    Not only is this agenda unpopular, it is deeply anti-life. 
We already know that abortion care is inextricably linked to 
maternal health outcomes. In Missouri, Black maternal mortality 
is four times higher than that for white women. Forcing people 
to continue pregnancies they do not want or cannot bear will 
cost lives. Forcing people into parenting without passing 
policies that address childcare costs, paid family leave, or a 
formula shortage will cost lives. The anti-abortion agenda is 
anti-life and hypocrisy at its worst.
    I have a plea for our allies, too, those of you who have 
long stood with us and committed to protecting reproductive 
freedom. Listen to those of us who have been warning about this 
moment for years. Work with critical access States to ensure 
that abortion remains accessible. Use every bit of your power 
to do something.
    On June 24th, 1 hour before the Supreme Court dismantled 
abortion rights, I was sitting next to HHS Secretary Xavier 
Becerra, along with partners and allies in Missouri, including 
the Congresswoman from the First District, Representative Cori 
Bush. In that meeting, we asked the Biden administration to 
declare a public health emergency, to support the patients who 
will have to flee their home States for abortion care, as 36 
million people of reproductive age now, or soon, will live in a 
State where abortion is banned.
    Senators, I come before you tired, frustrated, and angry. 
Those of us on the front lines, the abortion activists, that 
President Biden's team just this weekend referred to as out of 
step, we are the ones who are holding back this public health 
crisis that's about to sweep the country. I speak on behalf of 
my colleagues, abortion providers and advocates, we deserve 
better. We need action, and we need it now. We're out of time. 
Thank you for inviting me to share about this moment in 
history, which I am certain will be a stain as we move forward. 
Abortion is normal. It is an act of love, and it is 
fundamentally health care.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. McNicholas appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Dr. McNicholas. We'll now go into 
5-minute rounds for the Members to ask questions, and I'll 
begin. Dr. McNicholas, you've already addressed this issue, but 
I want to return to it, because I think it is critically 
important. There are some who say that those who support the 
abortion procedures are alarmists and exaggerating the danger 
that women face because of the Dobbs decision. I think you've 
alluded to this, and I want to make it part of the record. The 
United States already has the highest maternal mortality rates 
of comparable nations. In other words, more women die in 
childbirth in this country than most other countries. We are 
one of only 13 countries where the maternal mortality rate is 
worse today than it was 25 years ago. Every year, 900 women 
nationwide die as a result of pregnancy related complications. 
Seventy thousand suffer near fatal outcomes. Women of color are 
three times more likely to die as a result of pregnancy than 
white women. Yet, it could get much worse.
    A recent study estimated that a nationwide ban on abortion 
would increase maternal mortality in the United States by 20 
percent. Among Black women, the estimate is in the increase of 
33 percent. By ending the Constitutional right to abortion, the 
Supreme Court has ensured that maternal mortality in the United 
States will increase. In States, incidentally, with the most 
restrictive abortion laws already, there's a 7-percent higher 
maternal mortality rate than States with fewer restrictions.
    Tell me the practical side of this, the cases that you've 
run into as a practicing physician, as a doctor, where you've 
had to make this decision, life or death decision when it comes 
to the mother.
    Dr. McNicholas. Thank you, Senator Durbin. I first want to 
acknowledge the fact that you're right. This country has a 
disappointing and quite embarrassing maternal mortality rate 
already, and we are on the cusp of seeing that rate increase. 
The six States with the highest maternal mortality rate are the 
six States that immediately moved to ban abortion, and that is 
not a coincidence.
    In addition to the public health implications that we won't 
know for years, impacts on long-term maternal mortality rate, 
we are already seeing mass chaos among OB/GYNs, emergency room 
physicians, and quite frankly, pharmacists. We're talking about 
people being denied or delayed care for pregnancy and non-
pregnancy related conditions. Lupus, arthritis, cancer--
medications that we use frequently to control those conditions 
are being denied to patients because they might also contribute 
to miscarriage or could be used for abortion in other 
indications.
    OB/GYNs who are sitting on patients in emergency rooms 
while they bleed, while their vital signs become unstable, 
while they're waiting for hospital lawyers to decide is this 
patient sick enough. When the consequence of violating a law is 
criminal, doctors are put in impossible positions where they 
know the right care, they know what to do to help somebody, but 
yet they have to wait, making folks sustain totally preventable 
harm. It is quite embarrassing. It should be shameful.
    Chair Durbin. Professor Bridges, you made a reference in 
your testimony to 1868, and you used as an example when Justice 
Alito referred to the historical precedence and went back to 
1868, but at that moment in American history, women were not 
legally entitled to vote. I also note that in that moment women 
could not own property or enter into a contract in the United 
States of America. In 1868, not a single woman practiced law in 
the United States, and that was the historic basis that Justice 
Alito wanted to use for the Dobbs decision. Would you comment 
again on that particular aspect of this, when we talk about 
historic precedent?
    Professor Bridges. Absolutely, thank you for the question. 
It's a complete choice to elevate the year 1868 as the moment 
of Constitutional significance, in terms of constitutional 
interpretation. Again, it was a period of time in which women 
were simply not part of the body politic. It wasn't until 
social movements that occurred later in this country's history, 
in the 1970's, that we started to see movements for women's 
equality, and women could actually become something that we can 
call equal citizens.
    I also wanted to--I guess just give me time to just note 
the selectivity of Justice Alito's historical inquiry. He 
chooses to elevate 1868 in the context of abortion rights, 
because it will lead to the result that he likes. In other 
cases, in other contexts, he doesn't engage in a historical 
inquiry at all. In his affirmative action jurisprudence, 1868 
is also the relevant time that we should look for when 
interpreting the Equal Protection Clause. We should be 
interrogating what the Framers thought when they ratified the 
Equal Protection Clause in terms of did they think that there 
ought to be race conscious efforts to make newly--newly freed, 
formally enslaved people of color members of the body politic. 
If he engages into historical inquiry, he will have to lead to 
a conclusion that affirmative action is constitutional. He 
doesn't engage in that historical inquiry because it will not 
lead to results that he likes.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you. Lieutenant Governor Stratton, I'm 
a little over my time, but I want to give you a chance to 
respond to efforts that are underway on the maternal mortality 
issue, and protection of women. I have to give you fair warning 
that your statement that Illinois is a unique Midwestern State 
on the subject is going to be challenged by a Senator from 
Minnesota. Lieutenant Governor.
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. Thank you for that question and just the 
ability to add what the witnesses have already stated. In 
addition to that, I would point out that this will not only 
just have a disproportionate impact on Black women. When we 
often talk about the issue of maternal mortality, then we raise 
the issue of how it disproportionately impacts Black women. But 
the issue of restricting abortion access, the abortion bans, 
and other restrictions also will have a disproportionate impact 
on those women who are from lower income communities, on 
immigrant women, on young women, on women from rural 
communities, on our LGBTQ+ community. There are so many wide-
ranging ramifications, and the bottom line is that everyone 
should be able to decide for themselves what is best for their 
own health care, in conjunction with their physician. This is 
not something that should be decided with a political agenda. 
It is not something that should be a decision made by 
politicians. These are decisions that are very personal and 
should be made, and when they have health implications, as 
we're talking about maternal mortality, then this is an example 
of why it is not a politician's determination. It should be 
that individual's decision with their health care professional.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor. Senator 
Grassley.
    Senator Grassley. Ms. Matzke, I'm going to repeat some 
statistics you gave. According to Charlotte Lozier Institute, 
pro-life pregnancy centers performed more than 86,000 free 
ultrasounds, 731,003 pregnancy tests last year, 291,000 clients 
attended parenting and prenatal education classes, and 2,500 
locations offer material assistance that babies need when the 
family can't support it. Can you tell us how you help pregnant 
women, and even more importantly, would there be a disparate 
impact on these communities if your centers weren't available?
    Ms. Matzke. Yes, Senator Grassley. Thank you for the 
question. We give women free medical care, free parenting 
classes, and baby supplies, free medical and emotional support 
after an abortion. Along with that, pregnancy care centers 
throughout the entire country give $266 million a year of free 
medical care and resources to the community nationwide. It is 
important to know that pregnancy centers often support women, 
even after they've had an abortion. As a matter of fact, we had 
a 19-year-old young woman come into our clinic, who did not 
want an abortion. She was forced to take the abortion pill by 
her parents. She testified to the fact that when she took the 
abortion pill, she was isolated in a bathroom, all by herself. 
There was no support. There was no doctor there. There was no 
nurse there. There was no pain medication other than ibuprofen. 
She testifies to physically going into labor on the floor, on 
the toilet, and in her bathroom. At one point she said she 
looked down, and what they told her was a clump of cells, was a 
fully formed baby laying on the floor. Devastated, she claims 
she picked that baby up, and carried it around, put it in a 
plastic bag, and several weeks later, took it to a memorial and 
buried it. This is not health care. A woman, alone, by herself, 
in a bathroom, experiencing tremendous pain, and seeing the 
effects of it. A young woman who has an abortion at an abortion 
clinic never has to drive by that abortion clinic ever again. A 
young woman who goes into labor on the floor in her bathroom, 
and physically sees everything that comes out of her, and 
experiences the pain in the midst of that moment, has to wake 
up every single morning and relive that experience. Again, this 
is not health care.
    Senator Grassley. Ms. Harle, whether it's an unelected 
court, or the thinnest possible margins in Congress, we need to 
respect our institutions and their limitations. The Supreme 
Court shouldn't be taking power away from legislatures to make 
national policy from the bench, neither should the filibuster 
be destroyed to enact a bill that allows abortion until birth, 
a policy 8 in 10 Americans reject.
    To you, what are the constitutional and practical problems 
with the various proposals that we've seen and to enshrine 
abortion at the Federal level?
    Ms. Harle. There are a couple of problems. As a 
constitutional matter, Congress does not have the authority in 
its Constitutional powers to impose a national abortion regime 
upon the States. You can't find that in the Commerce Clause. 
You can't find that anywhere in Congress' powers. That would be 
a gross overreach and would trample on principles of 
federalism.
    As a policy matter, it's also problematic. The example that 
I'm aware of, the current so-called Women's Health Protection 
Act, which has a nice name, but if you read it, is actually an 
abortion on demand through all 9 months of pregnancy bill. That 
as a policy is--it's horrific. It's completely out of step with 
what the American people want. Americans are overwhelmingly 
opposed to abortion on demand up to the moment of birth, and 
the Women's Health Protection Act would actually allow a baby 
to be dismembered, torn apart limb from limb, just before 
entering the birth canal, for any reason whatsoever or no 
reason at all.
    It would also overturn hundreds of State laws that are 
modest in common sense and that protect life. As a 
constitutional matter, I don't think a congressional attempt to 
mandate abortion would be upheld in court, and as a policy 
matter, it is a horrific idea, and I think we should be 
embarrassed, that the United States is even considering 
something like that.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Senator 
Feinstein.
    Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I was just 
thinking back 50 years ago, when abortion was illegal, and I 
was sitting on the California Women's Board of Terms and 
Parole, setting sentences for women who committed abortion. I 
remember how terrible it was. Before the Supreme Court decided 
Roe v. Wade nearly 50 years ago, abortions were risky. They 
were difficult to obtain. Women would travel to Mexico to seek 
an abortion from an unauthorized provider, or they would 
attempt to self-induce an abortion, using dangerous and 
potentially life-threatening methods.
    We know from those times, and I know from those times, that 
banning abortion care will not stop people from seeking 
abortions. It will only make abortion more deadly. Overturning 
Roe does nothing more than endanger the lives of women. I'm 
really deeply concerned that State efforts to ban and 
criminalize abortion will once again emerge and will harm the 
ability of women to seek vital, medical care.
    Dr. McNicholas, from your experience as a provider, what 
impact have you seen from these State abortion bans, on women 
who are seeking reproductive health care? And Professor 
Bridges, what can Congress do to help protect people seeking an 
abortion?
    Dr. McNicholas. Thank you so much for the question, Senator 
Feinstein. I will start by saying and acknowledging and 
agreeing that the legalization of abortion has never been the 
driver of its necessity. That was true before Roe and that will 
be true now post-Dobbs.
    Pre-decision, you know, there were States like Missouri, 
who had made it so difficult that the Roe decision was 
inadequate and pushed abortion out of access for many already. 
The reality is right now in this moment, today, there are 
thousands, tens of thousands of people, who are navigating 
which bill can go unpaid, how to find somebody to watch their 
kids, making sure their transportation can get them thousands 
of miles to the next clinic, all in search of basic health 
care.
    What we know is that abortion bans, and restrictions alike, 
disproportionately affect people who live in marginalized 
identities and are worse for people who exist in the 
intersections of oppression. We will see more people be harmed 
by these decisions, both as pregnancy outcomes, as well as 
people who are being denied and delayed care outside of the 
abortion realm.
    Senator Feinstein. As of this past weekend, 21 States 
either have an abortion ban in effect, are expected to 
implement a ban soon, or have severely restricted abortion 
access in the State. These bans are forcing women to leave 
their home States in order to seek safe and legal reproductive 
health care. Some States with abortion bans in place have begun 
discussing the potential next step of banning people from 
traveling to seek abortion care outside of their home State. My 
home State, California, recently passed legislation that would 
help protect abortion providers and individuals from other 
States who seek abortion care in California.
    Professor Bridges, if some States take this next step of 
banning travel to seek abortions, what legal protection should 
States hoping to protect abortion access put in place to 
prevent harm to patients visiting their States for care?
    Professor Bridges. Thank you for the question, Senator. We 
have a clearly established constitutional right to travel in 
Saenz v. Roe in 1999. The Supreme Court interpreted the 
Constitution as protecting a right to travel, but that does not 
mean that that right is secure. We've seen in Dobbs that 50 
years of precedent can be overturned, just simply based on the 
membership of the Court.
    I want to back up just a little bit and respond to your 
question about what can Congress do in response to the reversal 
of Roe. Congress can and should repeal the Hyde Amendment. The 
Hyde Amendment prevents Federal funds from being used on 
abortion care. It has made it impossible for low-income people 
to rely on their health insurance, Medicaid, to cover the cost 
of abortion care. It also makes it impossible for people who 
rely on Indian Health Services, Native people, to turn to the 
clinics and the facilities that fulfill the Federal 
Government's obligation to Native people, to provide health 
care.
    Also, I just want to note that Congress can and should pass 
Federal legislation that creates a statutory right to an 
abortion. The Women's Health Protection Act is a nice first 
step. There is no question that Congress has the authority to 
pass the WHPA. This is because health care--they have the power 
under the Commerce Clause. Health care is an activity that 
substantially affects interstate commerce. The Court in NFIB v. 
Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act, did not cast 
doubt on Congress' ability to regulate health care, because it 
is an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. 
Congress certainly has the power to pass the WHPA and other 
efforts. Thank you.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. It would be 
helpful, any statement with particulars in it that you care to 
put into writing and submit to the Committee. I would certainly 
appreciate, so----
    Professor Bridges. Will do.
    Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Senator Cotton.
    Senator Cotton. Over the last few months, we've seen a 
marked increase in violence and intimidation by pro-abortion 
groups. Left-wing mobs have gathered outside the homes of 
Supreme Court Justices to try to intimidate them and affect 
their decision in the Dobbs case, a blatant violation of 
Federal law. Yet, the weak and hopelessly partisan Attorney 
General Merrick Garland refused to enforce that Federal law. 
It's gotten so bad that the Supreme Court Marshal has had to go 
to the Governors of Virginia and Maryland and plead with them 
to protect our Supreme Court Justices at their homes. In one 
case, a Democratic hit man even traveled from California to try 
to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh at his home.
    It's not just Supreme Court Justices targeted. Pro-abortion 
groups, including one calling itself Jane's Revenge, has 
claimed credit for firebombing a pro-life organization in 
Madison, Wisconsin, and numerous other firebombing attacks and 
acts of vandalism against pro-life groups in more than a dozen 
States. The same group even attacked and vandalized the 
campaign office of a Republican Congressman. This weekend, 
three separate churches in Maryland were all attacked, all 
three vandalized and desecrated, and two were set on fire. 
Those attacks are currently under investigation but are also 
believed to be related to pro-abortion causes and groups.
    I'd like to ask each of you, starting with Lieutenant 
Governor, do you condemn the violent attacks, fire bombings, 
and vandalism by groups like Jane's Revenge?
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. Thank you, Senator. Let me just say I 
will emphasize that violence against anyone is wrong, and no 
one should experience threats to their safety or their well-
being. But I would also urge everyone to bring the same energy 
to the attacks that are taking place against abortion providers 
and clinics. All across the board, violence is unacceptable, 
and we know that we are seeing violent acts as well as threats 
and attacks also on abortion providers and clinics. That also 
needs to be addressed with that same energy. We know that 
arson, bombings, assaults, which have increased exponentially. 
Stalkings have gone up 600 percent since 2020, against those 
that are abortion providers. So, no, I condemn any acts of 
violence and absolutely do not believe anybody should be--
experience threats to their well-being and safety. But that 
should apply equally across the board, and everyone should be 
working just as hard to make sure that abortion providers and 
clinics also get that same protection.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you. Ms. Harle.
    Ms. Harle. I do condemn all violence, and I would just note 
that abortion is an act of violence against the most innocent 
and vulnerable human beings.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you. Professor.
    Professor Bridges. I condemn violence, and I would like to 
note that forced birth is an act of violence as well. I have 
some additional statistics to share. There has been a 450 
percent increase in blockades at clinics that provide abortion 
services, and 163 percent increase in the planting of hoax 
devices in suspicious packages at clinics that provide abortion 
care. One hundred twenty-nine percent increase in invasions at 
clinics that provide abortion care, and 128 percent increase in 
assault and battery. Yes, we should keep that same energy 
across the board and protect everyone who's providing abortion 
care.
    Senator Cotton. Ms. Matzke.
    Ms. Matzke. Yes, I also condemn that violence. Violence 
should never be carried out on anyone at any time, and 
pregnancy centers here recently, since the overturning, the 
violence has been overwhelming that we have sustained. And the 
amount of money we have had to spend to protect ourselves just 
so we can offer free services to women is unbelievable.
    Senator Cotton. Doctor.
    Dr. McNicholas. Thank you so much. I appreciate the outrage 
for the violence. In fact, my own family would appreciate some 
outrage in protection of ourselves. Dr. Lynn Weller, murdered 
in 1977, would have appreciated some outrage. Dr. David Gunn, 
murdered in 1993; Dr. John Britton, in 1994; James Barret, a 
volunteer, murdered in 1994; Shannon Lowney, murdered at the 
age of 25, in 1994; Leanne Nichols, 38, murdered in 1994. Dr. 
Barnett Slepian, 1998, murdered in Buffalo, New York, after 
returning home from his synagogue and just hours after his wife 
forwarded the threat to the police. Robert Sanderson, an off-
duty police officer at a clinic, murdered by who everyone now 
knows as Eric Rudolph, in 1998. Of course, Dr. George Tiller, 
in 2009, murdered in his own church, would have appreciated 
your outrage as well.
    Senator Cotton. I'm sorry. I didn't hear an answer to my 
question. Do you condemn the violence committed by groups like 
Jane's Revenge?
    Dr. McNicholas. Echoing all of my fellow panelists here, I 
absolutely condemn violence against everyone, including 
abortion providers.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin. By 
the way, thank you for that answer. That was--going through the 
names, I think, really reiterates to many people up here that 
we condemn violence, but there have been a lot of people who 
have lost their lives, simply by trying to guarantee women what 
were once their guaranteed rights under the Constitution and 
now is in our hands.
    For nearly 50 years, Roe v. Wade protected a woman's right 
to make her own health care decisions, ensuring that women, 
their families, and their doctors were in charge of the most 
personal choices in their life, not politicians. This ruling 
means that not only will women receive different treatment 
under the law than men, but there will be, as we've discussed 
today, a patchwork of laws across the country.
    Look at what we're seeing right now. Louisiana passed a law 
that subjects abortion providers to criminal penalties. In 
Missouri, a bill was recently introduced that would allow 
private citizens to sue people, who help women leave the State 
to get abortion care. Mississippi's Governor refused to rule 
out banning contraception. As Senator Durbin noted, our State, 
like Illinois, is also an island in the heartland, but a good 
place. I'm very proud that our State has stood up in Minnesota 
for reproductive rights of women.
    After the Dobbs decision, I met with a group of health care 
workers from the Planned Parenthood Clinic in Moorhead, 
Minnesota, and I talked to the head of the Red River Women's 
Clinic in Fargo, North Dakota. She has resorted to a GoFundMe 
page in order to make sure that she can keep providing services 
in the upper Midwest, and in fact, is moving her clinic to 
Minnesota. All of the proprietors that I've talked to have been 
resolute in their desire to continue to serve the health care 
needs of women.
    I would start with you, Professor Bridges, because 
Minnesota is surrounded by States with abortion restrictions, 
providers expect to see 10 to 25 percent more people coming to 
our State. Can you talk about the strain that a sudden increase 
in women seeking care has on both patients and providers?
    Professor Bridges. Absolutely, I can speak on that, but I 
also will invite the Lieutenant Governor Stratton to weigh in, 
as well. We saw that after Texas passed S.B. 8, effectively 
ending abortion in the State, after 6 weeks of pregnancy, 
before most people know that they are pregnant, there was an 
incredible influx from patients in Texas in clinics in the 
surrounding States, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
    Some clinics reported a thousand percent increase in 
patients from Texas after S.B. 8 went into effect. Some clinics 
in Kansas provided information that 50 percent of their clients 
were now from Texas. That makes it difficult, of course, for 
people from Texas to access abortion care because now they have 
to travel hundreds of miles for abortion care. It also makes it 
difficult for the residents of Oklahoma and Kansas to access 
the care in their----
    Senator Klobuchar. Exactly.
    Professor Bridges [continuing]. State, because the supply 
simply cannot meet the demand.
    Senator Klobuchar. Given some of the things I mentioned, 
are you concerned that under the Court's sweeping decision 
there are no limit on what States can do to make it nearly 
impossible for women to seek care?
    Professor Bridges. There are limits, right? I mentioned 
Saenz v. Roe, which was decided in 1999, in which the Supreme 
Court held that there was a Constitutional right to travel. 
However, we have seen that the Supreme Court cares very little 
for precedent. The Supreme Court doesn't feel bound by 
precedent, and so if that precedent leads to result that it 
doesn't like, we can expect it to be reversed, just as we saw 
Roe reversed simply because of the membership of the Court.
    Senator Klobuchar. Okay, one last question. I'm concerned 
of the view that private health data could put providers and 
people seeking abortions at risk. One report showed that it 
only cost about $160 to buy a week's worth of location data on 
people who visited Planned Parenthood. That's why Senator 
Baldwin and I have partnered together to urge the FTC to 
regulate data brokers who are selling data about people who are 
seeking abortions. Yesterday, the FTC issued a statement 
committing to fully enforcing the law against illegal use of 
highly sensitive data. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, do 
you agree that it is important to protect data privacy, 
particularly in States that have outlawed abortion?
    Professor Bridges. It is essential that we protect data 
privacy. Whenever we're online, we leave a digital footprint. 
That footprint can now be used as incriminating evidence, if 
prosecutors are interested in pressing criminal charges against 
people seeking basic health care.
    Senator Klobuchar. Okay, very, very good. Thank you. Just 
one last thing, Lieutenant Governor, if you wanted to add 
anything on the front of the States like Illinois and Minnesota 
and the impact on these States.
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. I want to begin, Senator, by 
acknowledging the great leadership in the State of Minnesota, 
and I will also just add to your question regarding the 
protection of data and privacy issues. We know that the 
potential criminalization of patients coming to our State is 
certainly of top of mind in Illinois, but it's not just the 
patients. It's also the abortion care providers that also could 
potentially risk that same sort of criminalization. We are 
working with our States, leaders are gathering to talk about 
how we can continue to expand and further enshrine reproductive 
rights into State law. Because, again, everyone should be able 
to feel safe and be able to have access to health care between 
them and their physician.
    Senator Klobuchar. Very good, and our Governor, Tim Walz, 
and Peggy Flanagan, our Lieutenant Governor, I know have great 
respect, as I do, for you and Governor Pritzker. Thank you very 
much.
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Senator Lee? 
I'm sorry, maybe Senator Cornyn was first. You two want to work 
it out.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's important we 
focus on what we're actually discussing today. We aren't 
talking about procedures that culminate in and have as their 
sole intended purpose the termination of a baby's life. These 
are babies. It's also important that we recognize, in response 
to those who have said that the Dobbs decision was somehow 
undemocratic, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, 
the Dobbs decision was a victory for Republican democracy. 
There really is no way to argue otherwise with any credibility.
    What the Court did in Dobbs was to return this question, 
this question of whether, or in what circumstances, abortion 
will be allowed, returning that back to the people, and to 
their elected lawmakers. This is a decision that is not taken 
off the table by the Constitution, and because it's not taken 
off the table by the Constitution, it belongs to the people, 
who can exercise that decision through their elected lawmakers. 
The American people will now be able to say whether, and in 
what circumstances, and in what places abortion will be 
regulated. This is how Republican democracy in America works. 
This is how our Republic was always intended and established to 
function.
    Justice Alito, my former boss, in his well-written majority 
opinion, explained this point well. He said, quote, ``Our 
decision returns the issue of abortion to those legislative 
bodies, and it allows women on both sides of the abortion issue 
to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public 
opinion, lobbying legislators, voting, and running for 
office'', close quote. That's it, page 65 of the Dobbs majority 
opinion.
    Seems to me that the abortion industry, and the left, and 
those incumbent politicians whose campaigns are funded by the 
abortion industry have gone to great links to scare the 
American people, convincing them that Dobbs does something that 
it doesn't do. It saddens me that they're doing all of this for 
the cause of saying that it's okay, and, in fact, it's 
protected by the Constitution, to exterminate, to extinguish, 
an unborn human life. Makes me wonder whether those making 
these scurrilous arguments are simply afraid of American 
Republican democracy, simply afraid of the American people, 
simply afraid that when able to make this decision on their 
own, freed from the judicial oligarchy that has reigned over 
this era, this area of the law for the last 49 years, that they 
won't make the same decision, that the radical left would make. 
It seems to me to be the most plausible explanation for why 
they are so upset, and why they're calling it undemocratic. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
    It's also important to note that this reign falls 
disproportionately on some communities. It falls 
disproportionately on some races more than others. Black babies 
are at greater risk of being aborted than white babies. A New 
York City Health Department report, one that was released just 
about 4 years ago, found that between 2012 and 2016, when this 
study was conducted, that Black mothers aborted 136,426 babies, 
while giving birth to only 118,127 babies. That's right. 
Thousands, thousands of more Black babies were aborted than 
born in New York City during that relevant time period.
    It shouldn't come as a surprise as you consider that 
Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, was a big fan of 
eugenics, and her plans were not what anyone would want to 
defend today, on that front. She's someone who wanted to, 
quote, unquote, ``assist the race toward the elimination of the 
unfit.'' These are not laudable goals.
    Ms. Harle, these reports on the Black women, the rate at 
which Black women in New York City are getting abortions, 
they're heartbreaking. They're breathtaking. I hope to see 
States enacting stronger protections for life, including, among 
other things, laws prohibiting abortions based on the race, 
sex, or disability of the baby. I hope these laws would protect 
all babies, including Black babies. In your view, Ms. Harle, is 
race, sex, or disability a valid reason for aborting an unborn 
baby?
    Ms. Harle. Absolutely not. No one should be discriminated 
against based on their race, or their sex, or their genetic 
makeup. Certainly, no one should be killed because of any of 
those factors. These are the sorts of laws that States have 
been attempting to pass to protect the most vulnerable citizens 
from fatal, lethal discrimination, simply based on who they 
are, or what they might look like. This is what Roe has blocked 
States from doing. The people of the States were enacting, you 
know, voting for lawmakers, who would enact these good 
policies. Roe was blocking it, but now, the power has been 
given back to the people of the States to choose the sort of 
life affirming, life protecting polices that they want in their 
States and in their communities.
    Senator Lee. Mr. Chairman, I see my time's expired. I do 
want to note that what Ms. Harle just said is very legitimate, 
and the doomsday calls from those on the left are ignoring 
common sense. They're ignoring what human instinct tells us 
about protecting the most vulnerable among us. Members of this 
Committee, including some who are now attacking the Dobbs 
decision, once shared these views. Mr. Chairman, as I wrap up 
my remarks, I submit--I ask unanimous consent to submit for the 
record a copy of a letter that you wrote on August 4th, 1989, 
in which you said, among other things, quote, ``I believe we 
should end abortion on demand. I continue to believe the 
Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade should be reversed'', 
end quote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
    Chair Durbin. Without objection. Thank you, Senator Lee, 
and now Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lieutenant 
Governor Stratton, I completely agree with you that it is the 
woman, not a bunch of politicians, who should decide her bodily 
autonomy. As I listen to the--all of my colleagues who support 
the Supreme Court's recent decision, they lose sight, in my 
view, intentionally. They lose sight of the fact that who 
should be making the decision about what to do with our own 
bodies? Us, or a bunch of politicians?
    Professor Bridges, you noted that Justice Alito chose 1868 
as the historical basis for his decision in overturning Roe, 
and I agree with you. What is so special about 1868? Not only 
that, with the attitude or the approach of originalism, the 
Justices who take that approach go all the way back to our 
Founding Fathers and pretend that they know what our Founding 
Fathers meant when they drafted the Constitution. I use the 
word pretend because who the heck would know what our Founding 
Fathers meant. Is there any reference to AR-15 rifles in our 
Constitution? No.
    You noted that this is an outcome-based approach to our 
Constitution, and that is what Justice Alito applies. When this 
Committee had the hearing on the now Justices Gorsuch, 
Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett, of course they said Roe was 
precedent. Every single decision of the Supreme Court is a 
precedent, but the one group that can overturn precedent is the 
Supreme Court, and they are very busy doing so. In fact, I want 
to note--and I'm sure you're familiar, Professor, with the 
decision that was made overturning Abood, which was basically a 
40-year-old Supreme Court precedent that enabled public sector 
unions to collect union fees. In that decision called Janus, 
they just very summarily overturned that 40-year decision, 
thanks to the fact that Justice Gorsuch got on the Court, 
because when Justice Scalia died, and they had a previous 
decision called Fredericks, it was 4-to-4 decision. The minute 
Justice Gorsuch got on that Court, it was a 5-to-4 decision, 
overturning Abood.
    That is what the Supreme Court is busy doing, overturning 
precedent. I don't know what's going to happen to other 
decisions that protect constitutional rights, such as what 
Justice Thomas signaled, Obergefell, the same-sex marriage 
protection. That could be out the window if the Court applies 
to these kinds of cases a rational basis test rather than 
strict scrutiny.
    Professor, do you share the concern that I have about where 
this Court is going to go with some of these other decisions 
that have earlier been made?
    Professor Bridges. Absolutely, I am very concerned about 
where the Court is going to go. The logic of the Dobbs 
decision--the method of constitutional interpretation that the 
majority uses in the Dobbs decision should frighten everyone 
who holds dear these rights that are necessary for people to 
live fully human lives with dignity in this country.
    Obergefell v. Hodges--finding that there is a right to 
marry someone of the same sex. If you interrogate what was 
happening in 1868, no such right exists. Lawrence v. Texas--
finding that there is a right to be free from criminal 
punishment for consensual sexual contact with an adult. Such a 
right didn't exist in 1868. Griswold v. Connecticut. Skinner v. 
Oklahoma. Pierce v. Society of Sisters. Meyer v. Nebraska. I 
could go on and on. These rights that are important for 
marginalized people--marginalized people. Vulnerable people 
need these rights. Those rights simply were not contemplated by 
the people who drafted and ratified the Constitution in 1789, 
in 1791, or in 1868, so we should all be terrified.
    Senator Hirono. Agree with you. We have a radical group of 
very conservative Justices, who are going to be making further 
decisions like this. I have a question for Dr. McNicholas. You 
talked about the chaos that has been created as a result of 
this decision. I've been talking with some doctors in Hawaii. 
By the way, Hawaii was the first State in the union to 
decriminalize abortion before the Roe decision. In talking with 
some of the doctors, there is even an impact, potential impact 
on what doctors, soon-to-be doctors are taught in medical 
school. For example, D&C is a procedure that is utilized for 
miscarriages. Could medical schools in States like Texas no 
longer teach doctors how to do D&Cs because they may be accused 
of performing an abortion?
    Dr. McNicholas. I appreciate that question, Senator. Yes, 
in fact, we will be creating an entire cohort of physicians who 
are underprepared to take care of pregnancy emergencies. I 
think it's important to note that medications and procedures 
are simply that. What changes is the indication. The 
medications we use for medication abortion, the procedures that 
we use to perform procedures, are the same exact medicines and 
procedures we use for people who are experiencing pregnancy 
loss.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Hirono. Senator Blackburn.
    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to each of you for taking the time to be here with us today. I 
really appreciate it. Ms. Harle, I want to come to you first, 
if I may. The Dobbs decision--I've been so interested to see 
the way the different legal scholars have approached this, and 
I have read that Justice Ginsburg had weighed in on the 
failures of Roe. Noting I'm going to quote from her. She said, 
quote, ``It seemed entirely to remove the ball from the 
legislators' court'', end quote. Justice Alito had quoted 
Professor John Hart Ely's characterization that Roe was--and 
I'm quoting his statement--``not constitutional law.'' As you 
look at this, how do you explain the flawed reasoning of Roe, 
and how Dobbs corrected the flaw?
    Ms. Harle. That's correct. Legal scholars on the right and 
the left have roundly criticized Roe's reasoning. Justice 
Ginsburg, who was a proponent of abortion as a policy matter, 
recognized that its reasoning was fundamentally flawed, and she 
actually predicted that it would very likely be overturned. If 
I can connect this to the discussion about the year 1868, the 
reason that is the touchpoint is because the abortion advocates 
have insisted that the right to abortion somehow emanates out 
of the penumbras of nonexistent words in the Due Process Clause 
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Or they also sometimes say it may 
be in the Fourth, or the Fifth, or the Ninth, or other 
amendments. It's not there in the text, but 1868 is the 
touchpoint because the Fourteenth Amendment argument, the due 
process argument, is what the abortion advocates----
    Senator Blackburn. Okay, well let's turn to why the States 
are in the best position to handle this, because I read the 
Harvard/Harris poll. Forty-four percent of those polled wanted 
their State legislatures to set the abortion standards. Only 31 
percent wanted Congress to do this, and only 25 percent wanted 
judges. Why are the States in the best position to do this in a 
fair and equitable way?
    Ms. Harle. That's how the people get their voice heard, is 
that they--through their elected lawmakers, in their States, 
have a voice and a vote in enacting the policy. In 1973, 46 
States completely protected life, with extremely limited 
exceptions, and Roe overturned that. Even that recently, that's 
what the American people wanted.
    Senator Blackburn. What advice would you give States that 
are looking at taking this up?
    Ms. Harle. This is an opportunity. This is an opportunity, 
finally, that States have had the shackles removed from Roe's 
judicial power grab. It's an opportunity for the people to have 
a voice through their elected lawmakers, to enact policies that 
support the dignity of women, that protect unborn life, that 
protect the health and safety and welfare of the citizens. 
Protect the integrity of the medical profession to, you know, 
remove this barbaric procedure that destroys families, destroys 
communities, and has ended the lives of more than 60 million 
babies.
    Senator Blackburn. I've talked to women on all sides of 
this issue, as you can well imagine, and I find it so 
interesting. Once they realize that much of what they've heard 
in the mainstream media about their being a Federal abortion 
ban is incorrect, and they realize this goes to the States, 
that changes the nature of the conversation.
    Ms. Matzke, I want to come to you for just a moment. 
Planned Parenthood gets about a half a billion dollars a year 
that they can use to fund clinic work and provide health care, 
but what I have heard from many of the clinics in Tennessee, is 
that Planned Parenthood doesn't provide the services that they 
need for maternal care, the services that they need post-
pregnancy. Talk with me a little bit about the services, what 
people are asking for. I thought this would be interesting to 
us as a Committee, Mr. Chairman. When we talk about all this 
money that Planned Parenthood gets, but then they don't meet 
these needs for women who are pregnant, and do want to carry 
that baby to term and have that baby. When they come to you, 
what services are they asking you for that Planned Parenthood 
doesn't provide?
    Ms. Matzke. First off, thank you, Mrs. Blackburn, for 
asking that question, because it is vitally important for 
everyone here to recognize the fact that as the director of 
Alternatives Pregnancy Center, it is my responsibility to go 
out and raise, by myself, non-government funds, over $1.5 
million every year. I have to figure out where $1.5 million is 
going to come from, so we can provide free services to women 
facing unplanned pregnancies. Ironically, where we are at, in 
Sacramento, California, Planned Parenthood actually refers 
patients to us. Once a woman walks into them--this has happened 
countless times in the last multiple months--if they do not 
choose abortion, they are referred to Alternatives Pregnancy 
Center to be cared for. Alternatives Pregnancy Center offers 
all the support that they need, medical as well as material 
support, so the fact that Planned Parenthood sees the value of 
who we are, and what we offer to women, I think is important 
for everyone here to understand.
    Senator Blackburn. Well, and Mr. Chairman, I think as we 
look at this issue, this is something that we would want to 
look at as to why they do not offer that full array of health 
care services for women. Why are they choosing to make that 
referral to an agency to receive those full services, when 
they're receiving hundreds of millions and billions of dollars? 
I thank you. I yield my time.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Senator 
Whitehouse.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to the 
witnesses for being here. There's been a certain amount of talk 
during this hearing about the environment in which the Justices 
who wrote the Dobbs decision have had to operate since that 
decision, and I just wanted to flag in the general category of 
protest behavior the experience that I had with clinics in 
Rhode Island, in the 90's, when I was U.S. Attorney in Rhode 
Island. I flag it, in part, because during Justice Ketanji 
Brown Jackson's hearings, as a witness was brought forward to 
propose the narrative that these engagements between protesters 
and people seeking services at clinics were done in a spirit of 
peaceful and loving engagement. I lived a very different 
experience than that in Rhode Island and in Massachusetts when 
I became U.S. attorney. The environment outside of our Planned 
Parenthood clinic in Providence was so hostile that we were 
well-aware of it in law enforcement. Planned Parenthood had had 
to figure out ways to have people escort women coming for 
services into their premises through extremely hostile and 
abusive crowds. It reached a very bloody culmination in 
December 1994, when a clinic protester--we think that 
protesters went back and forth between Massachusetts and Rhode 
Island pretty often. A clinic protester went into a clinic in 
Massachusetts and murdered the receptionist and shot up the 
place, wounding others, and then moved on to another clinic 
outside of Boston, and murdered an employee and shot others and 
then disappeared. Didn't know where they were going. I got the 
news right away, and I called up the U.S. Marshal and I said, 
``Nobody knows where this guy is, right?'' They said, ``Nobody 
knows where this guy is.'' Because we knew of all of the 
threats and all of the abusive behavior that was happening 
outside of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Providence, I said, 
``Well, since we don't know where he is, we could be next. We'd 
better get over there right now.'' So, he and I went, and it 
was a cold December day, and we just stood outside of the 
Planned Parenthood clinic and the Marshals and FBI agents ended 
up joining us. Then the Providence Police took over security, 
and as it happened, the shooter had drove right by on the 
highway, just a couple hundred yards away, and went on 
southward, where he was ultimately arrested, I think in 
Virginia. He had gone right by, and I'll never know whether he 
pulled off and drove by and saw the activity and just decided 
to go on or whether he was going by anyway.
    That was the environment that we were working in with these 
clinic protesters. I want to make sure that that is absolutely 
clear on the record. This business of this all being, you know, 
peaceful and loving engagement is just not consistent with what 
I saw with my own eyes and with what the people in those two 
blood spattered clinics in Boston had to experience.
    I want to ask a very narrow question of Dr. McNicholas, if 
I could, and that is whether there are occasions when, entirely 
apart from the wishes of the mom, there are circumstances in 
which a doctor in a pregnancy will make a decision or 
recommendation for a patient that an abortion is now medically 
necessary? Either to save the life of the mother or for other 
reasons in which it is the independent medical conclusion of 
the doctor who--and doctors have to make hard decisions all the 
time--that the best decision in this case is that you have to 
go ahead with the procedure, either to save the mother's life, 
or for the sake of other children, or whatever. Is that a thing 
that happens in real life?
    Dr. McNicholas. Thank you so much, Senator, and before I 
answer your question, briefly, I just want to again state the 
names of the two women that were murdered that you referenced. 
That's Shannon Lowney. She was 25, and Leanna Nichols was 38.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
    Dr. McNicholas. Absolutely, every single day we see 
pregnancy complications that put people's lives at risk, and it 
is imperative that physicians have every tool at their disposal 
to be able to make recommendations. I say recommendations 
intentionally because we never tell people what they have to 
do. We give them information. We tell them what the risk is, 
and the potential complications, including death.
    Senator Whitehouse. What effect is Dobbs compounded by 
these anti-abortion laws in State legislatures having on 
doctors' abilities to make those decisions and provide those 
services to women, when medically necessary?
    Dr. McNicholas. In addition to the hat I wear as Chief 
Medical Officer for Planned Parenthood, I'm also an elected 
official for the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, and we are hearing, every single day, from our 
members, that they are afraid. They're afraid to make decisions 
that they know are the best health care for people. They're 
afraid of how sick they have to wait for people to get before 
they can take care of them. It is, you know--health conditions 
evolve, sometimes minute to minute, sometimes day to day, 
sometimes it takes weeks. The truth is that if we are setting 
up a system by which we are forcing people to sustain 
preventable morbidity and mortality, we are totally leaving an 
entire population of people behind. We are telling women that 
not only are they not allowed the decision to control their own 
body, but now we're not going to allow you to control your own 
body and make decisions when it means that you could 
potentially be leaving the three children you have behind when 
you die from that delayed care. It is quite disgraceful. It 
happens every single day, and ACOG is hearing every single day 
from people on the ground, right? I tell my 12-year-old all the 
time, intent and impact are different, and whatever the intent 
is of overturning Roe, the impact is that it is utter chaos and 
people are being harmed.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you for telling us about that 
impact.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Supreme Court's 
decision in Dobbs was a victory for democracy in America. 
Abortion is an issue on which the American people have strong 
and passionate views and disagree, as the witnesses here at 
this hearing demonstrate. Those disagreements have been 
longstanding, and the way our Constitution operates, typically, 
on issues in which there is sharp disagreement, it is the 
democratic process that resolves that disagreement.
    When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, seven 
unelected judges said to the American people, ``Your views 
don't matter. Your desire to protect innocent life doesn't 
matter. We know better than you, and we are going to prevent 
you from making decisions about protecting life.'' The 
consequence of that has been five decades of deep political 
division because the democratic process was prevented from 
operating.
    Now, that a 6-3 Majority of the Supreme Court has 
overturned that decision, questions of abortion will return to 
the elected branches of government. The democratic process will 
be allowed to operate. That will mean in bright blue States, 
tragically, we'll continue to see unlimited abortion on demand. 
In redder States, we will see some meaningful restrictions on 
abortions. Those restrictions will vary State by State, 
depending on the values and mores of their citizens. That's how 
our Constitution was meant to operate.
    If you disagree with the abortion laws in your State, you 
have an outlet to express that disagreement. You have an outlet 
to be involved in the political process. You have an outlet to 
advocate for what you believe the law should be. You're not 
forced to live under the rule of unelected judges operating as 
philosopher kings and decreeing the rules for 330 million 
Americans.
    I believe abortion is a tragedy, the over 60 million unborn 
children who've never breathed a breath of air, who've never 
lived, who've never danced, who've never hugged, who've never 
loved. Our country is far poorer for the millions of African-
American children who never had a chance to live and contribute 
to our country.
    Unfortunately, one of the consequences of the Court taking 
this out of the Democratic process is today's modern Democrat 
party has become radicalized on abortion. The case Planned 
Parenthood v. Casey, a lot of people don't know that the Casey 
in question there was Governor Bob Casey, who's a Democrat and 
who was pro-life. Today's Democrat party has said, ``If you're 
pro-life, get the hell out. Your views are not welcome in our 
party.''
    Part of the reason that Democrats in this hearing are 
painting the Dobbs decision in such apocalyptic terms, is they 
know their view of abortion, which is unlimited abortion on 
demand up until the moment of birth, partial birth abortion, 
with Government funding, with no parental notification, and no 
parental consent is supported by a tiny minority of Americans. 
They know that the voters, when given a chance, don't support 
that radical view, and I will point out that there was a time 
when Democrats used to say the same thing.
    We all remember Bill Clinton, who said he wanted to see 
abortion safe, legal, and rare. Today's Democratic party 
doesn't want it rare. It wants as much abortion as possible. 
I'll tell you this, when Roe v. Wade was decided, one Democrat 
who spoke up against it was a fellow named Joseph Robinette 
Biden, who said in 1974, quote, ``I don't like the Supreme 
Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far. I don't 
think that a woman has a sole right to say what should happen 
to her body.'' That was Joe Biden in 1974. Now, you may say, 
``Okay, that was a long time ago.'' All right let's go to 2007, 
just 15 years ago, 2007 Joe Biden--Tim Russert says, ``You 
supported that ban on late term abortions.'' Biden said, ``I 
did, and I do.'' That was 15 years ago.
    Just weeks ago, the Democrats in this body voted to strike 
down every restriction on abortion across this country, 
including bans on partial birth abortion, and every single 
Democrat but one voted for it. Maybe you might say, ``You know 
what? Joe Biden was out of step.'' Well, there's someone else 
who had similar views, the Chairman of this Committee.
    In a June 1983 letter, the Chairman of this Committee 
wrote, quote, ``I have clearly studied the issue of abortion in 
depth, and favor the Eagleton Amendment, which states clearly 
that the right to abortion is not guaranteed by the U.S. 
Constitution. The effect of this amendment will be to return us 
to the legal environment which existed before Roe v. Wade in 
1973.'' Signed Richard J. Durbin, Member of Congress. That view 
continued in August 1989. Chairman Durbin wrote, and again I 
quote, ``I believe we should end abortion on demand, and at 
every opportunity I have translated this belief into votes in 
the House of Representatives.'' He continued to say, ``I 
continue to believe the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade 
should be reversed.'' That was the view of a lot of Democrats 
not that long ago. But today's Democratic party is afraid of 
the voters on this issue. What the Supreme Court has done is 
returned this deeply personal, deeply important, deeply 
contentious issue to the voters. To let the American people 
decide, that's democracy. All of us should be happy about that 
fact.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cruz. Senator Booker.
    Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
all the women who've come here to testify. I know it's a 
sacrifice to come in for such an important day. Ms. Harle, can 
I just ask you a quick question, and just for the sake of time, 
could you just give me from your heart, a yes or a no? If 
Congress were to pass a national abortion ban, would that be 
something that you would support?
    Ms. Harle. I think our laws should protect all human life.
    Senator Booker. Thank you.
    Ms. Harle. Yes.
    Senator Booker. Thank you very much. Ms. Stratton, there's 
been a lot--something said by my colleagues about, I seem to 
imply, that allowing women to have access to safe abortion care 
is somehow racist against African Americans. Would you take 
brief moment to address that for me?
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. Absolutely, thank you, Senator for that 
question. First and foremost, I would think, as we look at the 
disproportionate impact that abortion bans and restrictions 
have on Black women in particular, and the harm that has been 
caused, it is cruel to deny that access to abortion is actually 
what is liberating for Black women. To be able to have bodily 
autonomy and the ability to decide what's best for their 
bodies, for their lives, and their futures.
    I am the mother, as I said in my opening remarks, of four 
daughters, three of whom are adults, and I had to have a very 
painful conversation with them, first upon the Leak decision, 
and then, of course, with the Dobbs ruling, about how could 
they possibly have fewer rights than their mother had. They 
should be able to decide for themselves and make a personal 
decision about what is in their futures, and we've already had 
a conversation about maternal mortality rates, infant mortality 
rates, related to the racial disparities that are attached to 
that.
    This is--you know, to talk about what happens with children 
and recognizing that after a child is born that they do not 
have access to resources. They are not given what's needed to 
address the systemic racism that they are going to experience 
throughout their lives, to make sure that there's no help 
that's given to these families, Black and brown families across 
our country, in the wake of these abortion bans and 
restrictions. It's contradictory to so much of what we have 
heard today. This is not about helping. This is only going to 
harm and cause immeasurable suffering.
    Senator Booker. Thank you, and Dr. Bridges, and Dr. 
McNicholas, maybe to that point, I've been looking at just data 
and seeing that States that provide a great access to 
contraception, free access to contraception, actually lower 
rates of unwanted pregnancies, like Colorado, lower rates of 
abortion by empowering women, and low-income women in 
particular. In the dissent of the Dobbs case, they pointed out, 
what to me was absurd. The reality that many of the States 
moving to create the most restrictive bans on abortion are the 
very States that aren't doing the things that are obvious to 
lower the rates of maternal death, like expanding Medicaid. 
This argument that they value life by not providing access to 
contraception, by not expanding Medicaid, their States have 
some of the worst records for women dying in pregnancy-related 
causes. It seems rank hypocrisy to me, and especially as it 
affects African-American women who die three times more. I was 
wondering if you just maybe, Dr. McNicholas and Dr. Bridges, 
could just as cogently as possible in the limited time I have 
left, can you just talk about how these bans, in the name of 
life, are actually causing so much more death in communities, 
especially for the most vulnerable women.
    Professor Bridges. I'm just going to take 30 seconds and 
then I'll pass it to you. Thank you so much for that question. 
I want to also point out that the States that are passing the 
most restrictive laws around abortion are also the States that 
are preventing people from voting. Senator Lee, Senator Cruz 
have talked about, ``Oh, this decision just returned--this 
Dobbs decision just returned it to the elected representatives 
of States to--and people can battle it out in these 
laboratories of democracy,'' as to whether they want to protect 
fetal life over the interest of the pregnant person. These are 
the same States that are stopping people from voting. Texas has 
the most restrictive voting laws on the books. Texas's S.B. 8 
doesn't represent the will of the majority of Texans. Texas 
S.B. 8 represents the will of the majority of Texans that were 
able to vote. In order for this to be a democracy, we have to 
protect voting rights, and I leave it to everyone in this room, 
as well as the rest of Congress, to protect voting rights so 
that we can be a real democracy.
    Senator Booker. With the indulgence of the Chair, would you 
please respond?
    Dr. McNicholas. Thank you so much. I think it's been well-
represented here that maternal mortality is the highest in 
States that are banning abortion and preventing access to 
things like expanding Medicaid. I will add one more thing, 
which is that as a physician who gets to care for many Black 
women, ultimately, at the end of the day, I trust that Black 
women know what they want and what they need for their own 
health care.
    Senator Booker. Thank you. Thank you for the indulgence, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Coons [presiding]. Senator Cornyn.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Professor Bridges, 
you, in your testimony talked about the prevalence of abortion, 
the percentage of Black babies that are aborted as opposed to 
non-Black babies. I think you said three or four times more 
Black babies than non-Black babies are aborted. You also talk 
about systemic racism. Do you see any systemic racism 
associated with the prevalence of abortion for Black babies, as 
opposed to non-Black babies?
    Professor Bridges. Absolutely. The higher rates of 
unintended pregnancy that lead to higher abortion rates among 
Black people is a result of structural racism, systemic racism. 
I understand systemic racism not to be boogie men who are 
trying to dupe Black people into abortion care. I understand 
structural racism to be the systems that have made it so that 
Black people disproportionally bear the burdens of poverty in 
this country, the systems that have denied them the basics that 
they need in order to live humane lives, like food, clothing, 
shelter, health care----
    Senator Cornyn. So, you believe----
    Professor Bridges [continuing]. A system that responds with 
the criminal legal system----
    Senator Cornyn. You believe that there ought to be more 
Black babies aborted. Is that right?
    Professor Bridges. I believe that we ought to create the 
conditions under which people can lead lives that are filled 
with dignity and humanity, and being able to----
    Senator Cornyn. To your way of thinking, that happens when 
more Black babies are aborted?
    Professor Bridges. I believe, I trust, I love Black people 
with the capacity for pregnancy. I think they have agency, they 
have intelligence, they know what is best for themselves, and I 
would love to create the conditions under which they can live 
lives that are filled with dignity and humanity.
    Senator Cornyn. Do you think a baby that is delivered alive 
has value?
    Professor Bridges. Yes.
    Senator Cornyn. Do you think a baby that is not yet born 
has value?
    Professor Bridges. I believe that a person with a capacity 
for pregnancy has value. They have intelligence. They have 
agency----
    Senator Cornyn. No, I'm talking about the baby.
    Professor Bridges. I'm talking about the person with the 
capacity for pregnancy----
    Senator Cornyn. You're not answering the question I'm 
asking----
    Professor Bridges. I'm answering----
    Senator Cornyn. Do you think that a----
    Professor Bridges. I'm answering a more interesting 
question to me.
    Senator Cornyn. Do you think that a baby that is not yet 
born--let's say the day before this mother delivers--do you 
think that baby has value?
    Professor Bridges. I think that the person with the 
capacity for pregnancy has value, and they have the--they 
should have the ability to control what happens to their lives.
    Senator Cornyn. Well, and I'd just note that you refuse to 
answer the question. Ms. Harle, the Declaration of Independence 
talks about certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. When do you think that inalienable right 
to life attaches?
    Ms. Harle. Thank you. Yes, life is a human right, and when 
I answered Senator Booker's question earlier that I think our 
laws should protect all human life, I think I was focusing on 
the hard part, and I didn't mean to suggest that it's a matter 
of congressional authority to enact the law that you described, 
but I do think that the American people understand that you 
have no rights if you don't have the right to life. That is a 
principle that our Nation was founded upon, and every human 
being from its earliest existence has its own DNA and has a 
future. If we don't extinguish it, it has a future. And that is 
a human right. It is the value and mores, as Senator Cruz was 
speaking of, that goes back to the founding of nation, even at 
common law, and all the way up until 1973 when those life 
affirming laws in 46 States were turned on their heads by the 
Supreme Court. I believe that's what the American people 
believe. Life is a human right.
    Senator Cornyn. Governor Stratton, as I listen to your 
testimony, it seems to me that you're advocating for abortion, 
at any time, for any reason, at any point during a woman's 
pregnancy. Is that correct?
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. What I'm advocating for is for everyone 
to have the right to determine what's best for their life, 
their body, and their future----
    Senator Cornyn. At any time, at any point in the pregnancy. 
Is that correct?
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. I'm advocating for everyone to have the 
right to make the personal decision about what's best for their 
life, their body, and their future.
    Senator Cornyn. I don't----
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. Everyone should have that right.
    Senator Cornyn. Do you not understand my question? My 
question is are you advocating that there's a right to abortion 
at any time, for any reason, at any point during a pregnancy?
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. I'm not sure if you understand my 
answer, but what I'm saying----
    Senator Cornyn. No, I understand that you're not answering 
the question----
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. Okay. Then we're--I----
    Senator Cornyn. What amazes me is the advocacy for 
unlimited abortion rights, where there is zero value placed on 
an unborn child. I think Senator Cruz pointed out, obviously, 
abortion is a very emotional and divisive issue in our society. 
One reason why we haven't had conversations like this is 
because the Supreme Court has said, ``You can't talk about it 
because it's out of bounds.'' It's in the Constitution, as 
opposed to it being decided in a legislative forum like the 
States.
    What I don't understand is the argument that a unborn child 
has zero value, the day before it's delivered, but then has 
value the day after it's born. Ms. Matzke, can you help explain 
that?
    Ms. Matzke. Thank you so much, Senator. Yes, I actually 
can. As a matter of fact, here in California there is a law 
that's about to be passed called the A.B. 2223, and this law 
basically will allow--as a woman is in the midst of a chemical 
abortion and she delivers a baby alive on the floor at any 
stage of pregnancy or in a hospital, that baby, if this law is 
passed, has the ability to be born alive and left to die.
    No matter what, a baby in the womb, or outside of the womb 
has value, and we are not just talking about the value of a 
life in the womb right now. We are also talking about the value 
of a life in California, after it is born, and allowing it to 
die, up to 28 days after birth.
    Senator Coons. Thank you. As we've heard today in 
testimony, both from my colleagues and from this panel, the 
conservative, activist majority on the Supreme Court abandoned 
decades of precedent protecting the rights of women to choose 
their reproductive health course. It has immediate consequences 
for the autonomy and the health of millions and millions of 
women in this country. I am concerned that the restrictions 
that we've seen in Dobbs' wake will further exacerbate 
inequalities and access to health care in this country.
    Some of the States, as my colleague, Senator Booker just 
observed, that are rushing to restrict this right also have 
among the highest maternal mortality rates in this country. I 
am grateful that President Biden promptly took steps to 
mitigate the impacts of the Court's policy decision. These 
topics are intensely emotional and divisive and are challenging 
for us to work through in an appropriate, safe, and 
constructive way in the democratic process. They are and should 
be the focus of discussion, debate, and action here and in the 
months ahead.
    I'm going to focus my questions today on the radical, 
legal, implications of this activist Court's decision in Dobbs, 
and the very real human consequences and impact. Weeks ago, 
generations of women and girls in our country understood the 
Constitution protected them against being forced to bear 
children against their will. Today those same women and girls 
have been told that the right to make their own decisions about 
reproductive health is not a right, a freedom guaranteed under 
our laws, and depending on where they live, that the State may 
force them to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth.
    If I might, Professor Bridges, the conservative history and 
tradition analysis, as I understand it, seems to fundamentally 
short-change the rights of women and other groups of people, 
racial, religious minorities, who had no power in the 
democratic process at the relevant time when key decisions were 
made and thus is fundamentally flawed. I'd be interested in 
your brief comments on what's the danger of the Justices' 
reliance on selective historical analysis to roll back a 
fundamental and protected constitutional right? If this 
majority can engage in a moment of activism to reverse 
precedent that guarantees protections for women's bodily 
autonomy, what other fundamental rights might reasonably be 
imagined to be at risk?
    Professor Bridges. Right, so, looking to the Nation's 
history, whether that, you know, date is 1787, when the 
Constitution was ratified; 1789, when the Bill of Rights was 
ratified; or 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, 
is to look at periods of the Nation's histories in which 
marginalized populations today were completely erased. I can 
talk about the LGBTQ community. They were not contemplated by 
the Framers, by those who ratified the Constitution. Their 
ability to live lives that are--have dignity, their ability to 
love who they love and to marry who they marry. That just 
wasn't contemplated by those folks who ratified the 
Constitution. People of color, immigrants, people with 
disabilities, people with the capacity for pregnancy, right? 
All of those groups were not simply thought of, and their 
interests were not considered during that moment in the 
Nation's history. I can tell you the litany of cases that we 
ought to be wary about being reversed. Obergefell v. Hodges, 
Lawrence v. Texas, Loving v. Virginia, Skinner v. Oklahoma----
    Senator Coons. Professor, what's the common thread across 
all those cases? Some folks that are watching may not know as 
much as you do about the specifics of what kinds of freedoms 
are protected by the whole line of cases.
    Professor Bridges. We're talking about--the Court framed 
these cases. The link that links them is this: Using the 
liberty term of the Due Process Clause to recognize that people 
need the capacity to make decisions about their personal lives, 
about whether they create a family, about how they raise their 
family, about decisions regarding love and sex and marriage. 
And, so, to pull Roe out of that thread of cases that have all 
recognized the right to privacy and liberty interests, is to 
create chaos and create uncertainty, with regard to cases that 
came after, and that's Lawrence v. Texas, protecting same-sex 
contact, same-sex marriage, as well as the cases that came 
before.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Professor. That's an insightful 
comment on how much else is at risk here and why this impacts 
fundamental rights that many of us, millions of us come to rely 
on to make decisions about our own life, about our families, 
about who we love, how we love, and when and how we choose to 
have children.
    Lt. Governor, if I might--I'm almost out of time. Nothing 
in the Dobbs opinion blocks States from subjecting abortion 
providers, women and girls, and others seeking abortion care, 
and trying to help them access abortion care to criminal 
penalties. Is that correct? There's nothing in the Dobbs 
decision that blocks States from imposing criminal penalties 
for seeking to access abortion care. Do you expect, as a result 
of this decision, we'll have now a whole series of efforts at 
the State level that will result in contentious litigation and 
imposition, potential criminal penalties of folks who are 
simply trying to help family members access abortion care?
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. I think that we are in the midst of 
seeing the kind of chaos that has been created by this decision 
in what is happening all across the country, where we are 
seeing different decisions, legislation that's been both 
proposed and passed. We've seen trigger laws. We've seen people 
seeking to travel from State to State and cross State lines. It 
is chaotic, and it is something that is causing harm and causes 
insurmountable challenges, quite frankly, for those who are 
trying to figure out what's possible. We need to make sure that 
people have the right to make decisions about what's best for 
them, with their physician, not from politicians. That's 
exactly what has been opened up with this decision.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor. Thank you to 
all of our witnesses. Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Coons. We're 
voting on the floor, so we're trying to both things. Senator 
Hawley.
    Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of 
the witnesses for being here. Before--I want to visit with you 
Ms. Matzke, but before I do, I just want to clear one thing up. 
Professor Bridges, you said several times--you've used a 
phrase--I want to make sure I understand what you mean by it. 
You've referred to people with a capacity for pregnancy. Would 
that be women?
    Professor Bridges. Many women, cis women, have the capacity 
for pregnancy. Many cis women do not have the capacity for 
pregnancy. There are also trans men who are capable of 
pregnancy, as well as nonbinary people who are capable of 
pregnancy.
    Senator Hawley. This isn't really a women's rights issue, 
it's a----
    Professor Bridges. We can recognize that this impacts women 
while also recognizing that it impacts other groups. Those 
things are not mutually exclusive, Senator Hawley.
    Senator Hawley. Your view is that the core of this right 
then is about what?
    Professor Bridges. I want to recognize that your line of 
questioning is transphobic, and it opens up trans people to 
violence by not recognizing them.
    Senator Hawley. Wow, you're saying that I'm opening up 
people to violence by asking whether or not women are the folks 
who can have pregnancies?
    Professor Bridges. I want to note that one out of five 
transgender persons have attempted suicide, so I think it's 
important----
    Senator Hawley. Because of my line of questioning? We can't 
talk about it?
    Professor Bridges. Because denying that trans people exist, 
and pretending not to know that they exist is----
    Senator Hawley. I'm denying that trans people exist by 
asking----
    Professor Bridges. Are you? Are you?
    Senator Hawley [continuing]. You if you're talking about--
--
    Professor Bridges. Are you?
    Senator Hawley [continuing]. Women having pregnancies?
    Professor Bridges. Do you believe that men can get 
pregnant?
    Senator Hawley. No, I don't think men can get pregnant.
    Professor Bridges. You are denying that trans people exist.
    Senator Hawley. That leads to violence? Is this how you run 
your classroom. Are students allowed to question you, or----
    Professor Bridges. Absolutely.
    Senator Hawley [continuing]. Are they also treated like 
this where----
    Professor Bridges. No, no, no.
    Senator Hawley [continuing]. They are told that they're 
opening up people to violence by questioning?
    Professor Bridges. Oh, we have a good time in my class. You 
should join.
    Senator Hawley. I bet.
    Professor Bridges. You might learn a lot.
    Senator Hawley. Wow. I would learn a lot. I've learned a 
lot just in this exchange.
    Professor Bridges. I know. Absolutely.
    Senator Hawley. Extraordinary.
    Professor Bridges. Yes.
    Senator Hawley. Ms. Matzke, let me ask you something. You 
provide health care to women free of charge, right? Is that 
right?
    Ms. Matzke. Absolutely.
    Senator Hawley. You've done this for many years?
    Ms. Matzke. Yes.
    Senator Hawley. You have licensed medical professionals at 
your pregnancy care center. Is that right?
    Ms. Matzke. That is correct.
    Senator Hawley. What are some of the resources that you 
provide for women who come to you in a time of need? Just give 
us a--you've talked about it in your written testimony--but 
just give us a sense of it.
    Ms. Matzke. We have three OB/GYN doctors, five registered 
nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, 
phlebotomists, medical assistants. We provide prenatal care, 
OB/GYN care. We provide pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, well-
woman visits, breast exams. We provide a wide range of medical 
services, yes.
    Senator Hawley. What do you think about the D.C. 
politicians now saying that your clinic and the other 3,000 
pregnancy care centers around this country are fake medical 
clinics? For instance, Senator Warren has said, ``It's now more 
important than ever to crack down on so-called crisis pregnancy 
centers that mislead and deceive patients.'' Senator Menendez, 
``Crisis pregnancy centers jeopardize women's health and well-
being, all while elevating unproven theories about birth 
control.'' Senator Warner wrote to Google asking them to censor 
search results for care centers like yours, saying, ``Directing 
women to fake clinics that traffic in misinformation is 
dangerous to women's health and undermines the integrity of 
Google's search results.''
    Do you run a fake clinic? Is that what's happening here? 
You don't provide actually medical care to actual women?
    Ms. Matzke. We absolutely do not run a fake clinic, and we 
have a full medical staff. Like I said, many of our medical 
professionals have experienced abortion themselves, including 
our OB/GYN doctor, who used to perform abortions. Our entire 
medical staff is there for women, whether they choose abortion 
and walk out the door, or whether they choose life for their 
baby and we support them for years after that.
    Senator Hawley. Do you think there ought to be an 
ideological test to be able to get medical care in this 
country? I mean, is that--should we say to women, ``Well, you 
have to agree with the D.C. Democrats ideology; otherwise you 
can't go get medical care''? Or maybe for you and the 
physicians who work at your pregnancy care center, or the 
thousands of others across the country, should we impose an 
ideological test on them and say that, ``Well, you have to 
agree with the D.C. Democrats' position on abortion, or you 
can't provide medical care to women?'' Should we do that in 
this country?
    Ms. Matzke. Absolutely not.
    Senator Hawley. I just want to ask in my few remaining 
seconds here. Ms. Harle, the Dobbs decision as I understand 
it--I've read it now a number of times--it gives to voters the 
decision as to what law should be pertaining to life and 
pertaining to abortion in all 50 States and other jurisdictions 
around the country. I'm just curious, do you know what 
percentage of voters in this country support the D.C. 
Democrats' position that they want to impose on the entire 
country, a one size fits all rule they want to impose, from the 
top down. Do you know what percentage of voters support their 
position, which is also by the way, the same position taken by 
North Korea, China, other notable violators of human rights? Do 
you know what percentage it is?
    Ms. Harle. I know that nearly 90 percent of Americans 
oppose abortion in the third trimester. The number that would 
support abortion up to the moment of birth has to be miniscule. 
It's a horrific policy.
    Senator Hawley. Yes, I mean, based on the most recent 
Harvard poll that was just released just a few days ago, less 
than 10 percent of voters say that they would support abortion 
into the final month of pregnancy, and yet that is the law that 
the D.C. politicians want to impose on every voter in America. 
To take this away from the people, take it away from my State, 
take it away from all the other States and the voters in the 
States, but impose this law, uniformly, that is not supported 
by 90 percent of the American people. Talk about anti-
Democratic. At the same time, they want to shut down 3,000 
pregnancy care centers all around this country. That's radical. 
Thank you for being here.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Padilla.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for 
your participation here today. As I believe you're all aware, 
this last Friday, President Biden signed a crucial executive 
order, seeking to protect access to reproductive health care 
nationwide. While I appreciate the President's efforts and the 
importance that his administration has placed on this issue, as 
we've discussed here at the hearing today, people of color, 
economically disadvantaged families, immigrants, and members of 
Tribal communities have faced significant barriers to receiving 
adequate health care, even before Roe was overturned. Those 
barriers will only further increase now.
    In a country where the Black maternal mortality rate is 
triple that of white women, we should not be forcing anyone to 
carry pregnancies to term, if they wish to terminate for health 
or other reasons, period. If we are serious about protecting 
lives in America, we should be ensuring that mothers across the 
country have every medical resource available. Anything less is 
simply unacceptable.
    My first question is for Professor Bridges, since you are 
from my home State of California. In your written testimony, 
you mentioned how the harshest effects of Dobbs will fall on 
Black people, Black women, Black families. Can you describe how 
this decision will impact the maternal mortality rate for Black 
women?
    Professor Bridges. Absolutely. As you've already noted, 
Black people with the capacity for pregnancy have a maternal 
mortality rate that is three to four times the rate of their 
white counterparts. I also think it's important to mention 
maternal morbidity, severe maternal morbidity. Our rates are 
twice that of our white counterparts, meaning that we have to 
undergo a lifesaving intervention, like mechanical ventilation, 
like a hysterectomy, in order to keep our lives during 
pregnancy, childbirth, or the postpartum period. Removing 
abortion access, removing the ability to safely terminate a 
pregnancy compels birth, which is simply more dangerous for 
Black people. I want to just mention that this is not 
inevitable. Black people don't have a gene that causes us just 
to die. These are social causes of these disparities of 
maternal mortality and morbidity, meaning that we, as a 
society, have not invested the resources that can make 
pregnancy, childbirth, and the post-partum period safe for 
Black people.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. A question for Lieutenant 
Governor Stratton. Note respect that Illinois has taken steps 
to ensure that abortion remains legal for all, regardless of 
their background. Can you elaborate a little bit on how the 
elimination of abortion restrictions is essential in achieving 
reproductive, as well as economic and racial justice?
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. Absolutely, thank you, Senator, for that 
question. First and foremost, in addition to the conversations 
that we have been having about maternal mortality and the 
disproportionate impact on Black women in particular, I want to 
talk about some of the other long-lasting restrictions that we 
will see from--the long-lasting impacts of the restrictions or 
bans to abortion. This includes an increased risk of intimate 
partner violence. We know that for pregnant people, intimate 
partner violence and, in fact, it's one of the leading causes 
of homicide for--homicide is one of the leading causes of death 
for pregnant women. We know that it will be increased health 
problems regardless of not just because of maternal mortality, 
but also other health issues that can exist far beyond that 
point of giving birth, as well as the financial and economic 
risks. The strain, increased evictions, increased poverty, 
living in long-term poverty, being in debt. Listen, I am a 
mother to four daughters, and I can tell you for anybody who is 
a parent, raising a child is expensive. To talk about forcing 
someone to, you know, become a parent, and give birth, and to 
carry out a pregnancy to term, when that is not what that 
person wants, that as has been stated before by Professor 
Bridges is a form of violence. People should be able to choose 
what's best for themselves. Politicians are not health care 
professionals, and we should be able to have that bodily 
autonomy to decide, not just what's best for our bodies, but 
what's best for our futures. Maybe it's not the right time to 
start a family. We should be able to decide that for ourselves, 
as it has been for close to the last 50 years.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I know my time is 
limited. I'll truncate my final question if that's okay--just 
to ask one final question. Recognizing that in the majority 
opinion, Justice Alito wrote that Americans need not worry 
about the broader implications of the right-wing majority's 
decision to overturn Roe. He said it's limited to this. Yet, 
and in it's concurrent to Justice Alito's opinion, Justice 
Thomas makes it explicitly clear that those other rights are 
not actually secure. It has invited the Supreme Court to take 
up cases to revisit other areas of what we had believed to be 
settled law.
    Professor Bridges, does the reasoning in Justice Alito's 
opinion striking down Roe actually--is it possible, or likely 
it could be applied to other areas of settled law that could go 
backward on access to contraception, rights as it pertains to 
marriage, intimate relations, and other fundamental rights?
    Professor Bridges. Absolutely, the Court's protestations 
that it is not at all touching those cases rings very hollow. 
The logic of the decision, the methodology of constitutional 
interpretation leave all of those decisions that Justice Thomas 
himself highlighted open to revisiting and reversal.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Ossoff.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 
panelists. Thank you for your testimony and your presence 
today. I believe I may be concluding this hearing--one more 
after this? I would like to focus these few minutes, if I 
might, on the real-world impact on the consequences for women's 
health, women's lives, women's risk of death or grievous 
injury. Of laws such as the one we have on the books, not yet 
enforced, but perhaps soon. H.B. 481 in Georgia, which bans 
abortions beginning at 6 weeks, before many women even know 
their pregnant, with very limited exceptions. In other States, 
where even more draconian and extreme bans on abortion are on 
the books, just waiting to be enforced as this decision and its 
implications make their way through the courts.
    Dr. McNicholas, based upon your experience, when a State 
government steps in and decides it will regulate pregnancy and 
forbid a woman in consultation with her doctor from making the 
personal choice about her pregnancy, as early as 6 weeks in 
pregnancy, what are the implications for women's health?
    Dr. McNicholas. Thank you so much, Senator, for raising the 
issue. I want to recognize you're probably the closest to the 
issue in some personal experience with your wife being an OB/
GYN, so certainly you have heard some of the stories already. 
You know, the truth is pregnancy is complicated, and it can 
become life threatening at any moment. You know, I'm going to 
go radical here and say I've heard lots of talk about whether 
this should be decided at the State level or at the Federal 
level. I'm going to go bold and say it actually should be 
considered in the medical world. This is a health care issue. 
This isn't a legal issue, or it shouldn't be decided by State 
representatives or Federal representatives. It should be 
decided by a patient and their family. They are the only person 
who can know whether it is appropriate to start a family or to 
expand their family.
    I have had so many examples over my lifetime and my career 
of just how complicated pregnancy can get, and just how quickly 
somebody can go from completely healthy to on the verge of 
death. Pregnancy is no joke, and as we see more and more States 
deny access to this lifesaving care, we will see more people 
harmed. We are already seeing that. You know, in the wake of 
Texas' and Oklahoma's bans, we saw an increase of more than 120 
percent of people outside of our area.
    You know, all this talk about abortion later in pregnancy, 
I'm going to tell you that the only relevant fact about 
abortion later in pregnancy right now, is that these bans will, 
in fact, push people to later in pregnancy when they are having 
their abortions. It will not be because of the work that I do 
that people get abortion later in pregnancy, it will be because 
of all of these people that support bans. That is why people 
will have abortion later in pregnancy.
    Senator Ossoff. I'd like to continue, Doctor, with the 
discussion on the impact on the practice of medicine. These are 
extraordinarily complex medical cases.
    Dr. McNicholas. Yes, absolutely. You know, particularly for 
folks who are experiencing either worsening chronic medical 
conditions, or new conditions related to pregnancy 
specifically, it is so imperative that physicians, their entire 
care team, which include obstetricians, and perinatologist, and 
neonatologist, and pediatricians, that they have every single 
tool available to them, so that they can present patients with 
all of their options to preserve their health.
    You know, as I think about the phone calls I'm getting from 
physicians across the State of Missouri, in my role, again, as 
an ACOG leadership, what I'm hearing people say is, ``My 
hospital sent me a policy that says, `I have to wait until 
their blood count drops, or until their vitals are unstable 
before I can take them'. I have to wait until it's clear that 
they are so sick, that their infection is so bad that they now 
require intensive care.'' These are completely preventable 
occurrences in a person's life that not only impact that 
pregnancy, but every pregnancy to potentially follow. We're 
talking about people leaving families, you know? If and when 
these people are dying from delayed care, they're leaving 
behind kids. They're leaving behind families. There is some 
real tragic impact that we are going to see in the coming days, 
weeks, and months.
    Senator Ossoff. In sum, Doctor, I might ask you your 
opinion, who are the people in the world best qualified to 
determine when someone's life is at risk, when someone's health 
is at risk, and what health care someone needs?
    Dr. McNicholas. You know, about 16 years of education, and 
lots of years of practicing, sitting at the bedside with 
patients, and learning from my colleagues in different 
specialties, physicians and health care providers are the ones 
who are best prepared to decide. The truth is, that's why we've 
seen in the recent days more than 75 professional medical 
organizations sign on to a statement detesting this decision. 
We're not talking just OB/GYNs. We're talking rheumatologists 
and oncologists and psychiatrists and anesthesiologists, people 
who may peripherally touch abortion care, but recognize how 
dangerous it is that physicians are now being told that it 
isn't their clinical expertise that should guide the health 
care that they provide. That it is actually the Attorney 
General or a lawyer's opinion about whether that is sick 
enough. It's tragic and it will put people at harm.
    Senator Ossoff. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you. We are joined by Senator 
Blumenthal, who is recovering from Covid, and I hope he is with 
us. Dick, are you there?
    Senator Blumenthal. I'm with you, Mr. Chairman, and hope 
that you can hear me and that the witnesses can hear me. I want 
to begin by thanking every one of them for being with us today, 
and I apologize for being with you remotely. This hearing has 
been enlightening, and I want to just begin by saying that in 
the last few weeks, I've traveled around the State of 
Connecticut to clinics and visiting providers in Waterbury, New 
Haven, New London, Hartford, and as much as I have felt their 
anguish and anger, their fear about the future, I'm also 
impressed by their resilience, and their resolve to continue 
providing these essential health care services.
    Connecticut, fortunately, decades ago enacted a law that 
enshrines Roe v. Wade. I helped to lead that effort in the 
1990's and consequently, Connecticut has been confident of 
those rights over these times. Now we face, at the Federal 
level, the same challenge. I'm helping to lead the effort on 
the Women's Health Protection Act, which would incorporate Roe 
v. Wade into our statutes. Let me just say very bluntly, any 
Senator, any person who says they are in favor of choice should 
be in favor of the Women's Health Protection Act. Senators who 
say they are pro-choice should vote in favor of the Women's 
Health Protection Act, and unfortunately, no Republican voted 
in favor of it the last time we had a vote, just months ago. 
That is truly one of the ways to protect reproductive rights.
    We also have other legislation pending, such as Senator 
Hirono's bill to protect privacy of medical records, rights of 
travel. The House will be hopefully voting this week on some of 
those steps. In the meantime, I commend President Biden for 
moving forward with protections and urge, again, that he 
declare a national emergency. We truly face an emergency every 
bit as dire as the opioid epidemic and Covid crisis, which have 
prompted declarations of emergency in the past. I urge that 
President Biden, as we said to him in a letter recently, 
declare that emergency.
    Just very bluntly, I was so impressed by the Illinois 
Lieutenant Governor's testimony that we face a future rife with 
needless death. The plain fact is that Dobbs is a death 
sentence for many women around our country, and they will come 
to States like Connecticut, which has moved forward in the past 
year with the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act. It provides 
protections unparalleled, as far as I know, among any State, so 
far, in the country. Although, a number have enacted Roe 
protections, such as Illinois and Delaware and others, either 
by statute or executive order.
    Connecticut has gone further by creating rights of action 
for individuals who are pursued by bounty hunters to call back 
the costs. It said, in effect, that it will not cooperate with 
extradition attempts or other kinds of criminal enforcement 
attempts by Texas or Oklahoma or other States that have laws. 
Eventually, it will probably be about 26 of them.
    Here is my question to Lieutenant Governor Stratton. States 
like Connecticut and Illinois face an impending surge of women 
seeking their rights, health care rights, reproductive rights, 
human rights in our States. What we face is unprecedented cost 
to our health care system, to the providers of clinics. What 
would you recommend--and I understand resources may be a part 
of it--that the Federal Government to do to help those states 
that face this impending crisis?
    Lt. Gov. Stratton. Thank you, Senator, for that question 
and let me begin by saying that I hope you are well and on the 
road to recovery, a full and complete recovery. This 
administration, the Biden-Harris administration, should explore 
all of the available tools at its disposal to the broadest 
extent that they can under the law to protect access to 
abortion. This administration must also challenge the Roe 
decision through the Department of Justice guidance and 
protections and through as much administrative action as 
possible.
    As you mentioned, Senator, this is a national health 
crisis. It is not going to work. We've seen the chaos that has 
happened, and it's not going to work with everyone doing their 
own thing. People will die, and that is just the fact. We are 
seeing that already. We know that the action of this 
administration cannot be unilateral, so I thank you for your 
leadership on the Women's Health Protection Act. We need to 
make sure that the administration works with Congress to pass 
additional abortion protections and signed--and get the Women's 
Health Protection Act passed and signed into law, codifying a 
right to reproductive freedom, eliminate the Hyde Amendment 
restrictions, because we know that that also prevents people 
from getting access to care, and passing and signing into law 
the EACH Act to make sure health insurance will cover, through 
Federal funds, health coverage will be available.
    Then, of course, each of these laws must be implemented. It 
is, again, a call to make sure everything is done. As I 
mentioned in my remarks, which you have, my opening remarks, 
we've also talked about creating some sort of hub so that there 
can be some sort of coordination among States to make sure that 
women, that people, Americans are getting the health care that 
they deserve and need.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks for that answer, Governor. In 
the couple of moments I have left, let me just emphasize that 
we need a kind of reproductive rights for health care triage 
right now, facing a tremendous burden that States like Illinois 
and Connecticut, which provide a kind of safe harbor, will face 
going forward with our providers and clinics. Every one of the 
measures you've just mentioned and more need to be explored, 
particularly public health emergency declaration, which would 
enable more resources under Medicare and Medicaid to be 
provided, because resources will be so very important. I thank 
you for your leadership and I believe that women who are 
residents of safe harbor States like Connecticut will be 
assured by the resolve of our Governor and our legislature that 
they will stay true to course. We must prepare to provide this 
essential right to women around the country who will come to 
our States, and make sure that we have the resources to fill 
the gap. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I thank 
everyone who's been part of this, and if no other Members are 
seeking recognition, if you'll bear with me for a point of 
personal privilege for just a few moments.
    The letters which were displayed by Senator Cruz and 
Senator Lee are not new. I've seen them over and over again. 
They are 30 and 40 years old, and it's true that my position on 
this subject did change, but it might be of interest to you why 
it changed. When I was a Member of the House of 
Representatives, there was a major offer to send money to 
Planned Parenthood for family planning and birth control that 
could not be used for abortion procedures. In my mind, that was 
sensible. Family planning and birth control gives to a woman 
and a family an option to control and plan their pregnancies. 
Isn't that what we want? Unplanned pregnancies are what lead 
us, many times, to an abortion decision.
    I voted for this family planning and birth control, and the 
pro-life group said, ``That's it. We're never going to support 
you again. You've broken with us.'' Then I started looking at 
this issue thinking, ``If they can't even buy birth control, 
how can this be a sensible approach?'' I sat down. I know 
exactly where I was, in Quincy, Illinois, at a home for young 
people who were in trouble in their teens. I sat down with two 
young women who were about to turn 18, one a victim of incest, 
one a victim of rape, and they told me their stories. I didn't 
ask them to, but they wanted to tell me.
    I left that meeting with a kind of understanding that I'd 
never had before about the complexity of the decision behind 
the abortion procedure many times. Some people think it's just 
a simple thing of, ``I don't want to be bothered.'' I think 
it's much more serious, in most instances. I thought to myself, 
``As an individual Member of Congress, are you ready to pass a 
law that applies to every woman in America?'' No, it really has 
to be her decision. We can regulate it as we should. But at 
that point I made my break, and I've run/stood for election in 
the House, in the Senate, many times since then. I've seen 
these letters before, and I'm sure I will see them again.
    I thank you all for being here. With the Dobbs decision, 
young Americans have been thrust into a world in which they do 
have fewer rights than their parents and grandparents. That 
stark reality is a condemnation of the Court's conservative 
majority, and the extent to which they've shaken American 
people's faith in the rule of law.
    To our sons and daughters across America who are fearful of 
the world that's coming their way, Francis Bacon once said, 
``Truth is the daughter of time, not authority. Progress may 
not always follow a linear path, and while it can move at a 
plodding pace, in due time, progress and truth will arrive.'' 
To quote Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer's dissent, ``The 
Framers of the Constitution understood that the world changes. 
They defined rights and general terms to permit future 
evolution in their scope and meaning. The story of America is 
the story of that future evolution, and it's the responsibility 
of all lawmakers to move forward. We have a lot of work to do 
to leave Americans in the future in a better position than the 
world that we have handed them.'' This hearing is the first, I 
think, organized serious hearing in the Senate on this subject. 
It won't be the last. The conversation continues, and I thank 
all the members of the panel for joining us today. With that, 
the Senate Judiciary Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                            A P P E N D I X

Miscellaneous submissions:

 American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Statement...........   110

 Howard, Representative Donna, State of Texas, July 12, 2022......   132

 NARAL Pro-Choice America Statement...............................   107

 Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH), July 12, 2022..........   129

 Senator Durbin Letter (submitted by Senator Lee), August 14, 1989   123

 Sussman, Dana, Testimony, July 12, 2022..........................   124

 Texas Freedom Caucus.............................................   137

 Ziegler Testimony (submitted by Senator Durbin)..................   141
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT`