Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing On Privacy Civil Rights In Post-Roe America 20220725

Good morning, everyone. The House Committee on the Judiciary Committee will come to order without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. We welcome everyone to this mornings hearing. Whats next threatening individual freedoms in a postroe v wade world. To remind members we have established an email list dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions or other materials members might want to offer as a part of todays hearing. We would like to submit materials, please send them to the email address that has been previously distributed to your offices and we will circulate the materials to members and staff as quickly as we can. Before we start, i would like to warn that members that because we have votes at 12 30, im going to have a very tight gavel. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. What is the meaning of freedom in america in 2022 . This is the question as a society we must confront today in the appalling decision in Dobbs V Jackson Womens Health organization which eviscerated the constitutional right to abortion and laid the groundwork for a radical reshaping of our fundamental liberties. As you reckon with the consequences of this decision for Womens Health of individual liberty, we must also consider which other constitutional protections such as the right to contraception, the right to marry whomever we choose and the fundamental right to privacy may also fall by the wayside to the Current Supreme Court majority continues that. By overturning 50 years in planned parenthood versus casey, the court denied the right of women to a quality body autonomy and essential healthcare. Rights justly relied on for almost a half a century. In doing so the Court Removes individuals from the power to decide the fundamental question to carry or terminate a pregnancy, and instead gave that power to the government making decisions about when and how to start a family is central to womens lives. It is the very essence of what it means to be secure in ones bodily autonomy, basic Human Dignity and prerequisites for freedom. In dobbs, the majority ignored these principles and turned back the clock 50 years. Make no mistake, overturning roe is just the start. Republicans and antiAbortion Forces are determined to enact the nationwide ban on abortion the next time they control the branches of the federal government. You dont have to take my word for it. At the Senate Minority leader Mitch Mcconnell made it clear that, quote, it is possible for the Republican Controlled Congress to enact such a ban. The Washington Post reported that, quote, leading antiabortion groups and their allies have been leading behindthescenes to plan a National Strategy including the push for the strict nationwide ban on the republicans taking power in washington. With the impact and undermining the immersion access much of the last two generations congress, Supreme Court and the executive branch enacted even with some considerable backsliding at times with guarantees of personal liberty and autonomy against government interference. These constitutional and legal guarantees and personal liberties in turn reflect american societies move to in ever more expensive view of individual freedom. Today, however, the radical rightwing majority on the Supreme Court seems to challenge the broad arc of the nations history that has been towards greater freedom and justice for all and the judicial activists that have barely tried and that we as a society would remain in place. At the right to the majority believe the court was wrong to overturn the constitutional guarantee for Abortion Access but the court defied the will of the majority and in doing so undermined its own legitimacy in their eyes. According to the majorities limited conceptions afforded liberty or understanding of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the constitution should be frozen in amber at the time the constitution and the 14th amendment ratified. Periods in history when women and minorities were largely locked out of public life and american democracy. It would be to the future attack. Calling on the court to overturn all of the substantive jurisprudence including specifically the precedents recognizing the protections to the contraception, intimate relations, Marriage Equality it is inviting legal challenges to these and other rights. With that said these other fundamental rights. To secure the blessings and liberty to ourselves and our prosperity in the constitutions preamble states we must remain vigilant against forces hostile to the liberty including unfortunately the current majority on the Supreme Court. We should also consider legislative measures that will secure the rights of the constitution currently guaranteed. As a gentle man from ohio, mr. Jordan for his opening statement. To ensure the decision isnt misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize or decision concerns the right to abortion and no other rights. Not being in his opinion should be understood on the precedents that do not concern abortion. The court also said this and this is critical we hold that roe and casey must be overruled and the constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is protected by any constitutional provision. It is time to lead to the constitution and return the issuer to the peoples elected representatives. Those statements are what bothered the left. Their beef is with the constitution. The court was clear the constitution means what it says. This will allow the taking of an unborn childs life right up until and they are so pro abortion that they are willing to engage in all kinds of efforts to intimidate the highest court in the land. It started a while back and said this. On the steps of the United States Supreme Court. And i want to tell you gorsuch and kavanaugh you released a whirlwind and will pay the price. You dont know what will happen if you go forward on these decisions. Intimidation continued when the chair man of this committee 15 months ago introduced legislation to not one, two, three, but for associate justices to the United States Supreme Court. The intimidation continued when this committee in the left in the concerted effort targeted Justice Thomas and his wife when they went after them repeatedly. We had a hearing on it here in this committee. And then of course the intimidation reached something weve never seen. Something thats never happened before. The leaking of a draft opinion by the court. Never happened in the history of the country. So focused are they on going against the constitution and having their pro abortion agenda happen and of course after the leak, there were protests that justices in a statute. They held a matter pending before the highest court. During that time when all the protesting was going on at the justices homes when Justice Barrett had her school put online and the last but online where her family attends church on sunday morning they passed legislation to give protection to justices families and the speaker of the house of representatives held up and passed unanimously and the speaker of the house held up the legislation for four weeks. And guess what happened during that time. We had Something Else thats never happened in the history of the country, an assassination attempt on a sitting justice of the United States Supreme Court. Stop and think about that for a second. We have a Justice Department that has failed to prosecute anyone with a statute thats directly on point with people protesting trying to intimidate and influence pending before the court the Justice Department refuses to do anything. The Justice Department that is now complicit in this attack by the left to intimidate the court, complicit in going after the separate but equal branch of our government. It might take a while but i want to read this. I think its important. These are attacks that have happened on Crisis Pregnancy Centers and churches over the last ten weeks individuals vandalized in maryland and portland morgan they spraypainted graffiti on the Resource Center, may 7th activists vandalized a Crisis Pregnancy Center in texas and may 7, fort collins on the doors of a catholic parish, may 8th, mothers day, individuals attempted to break into their Oregon Office and vandals spraypainted pro abortion messages on the site of a prolife Pregnancy Center and a Nonprofit Center in madison, wisconsin was set on fire and vandalized and the words if abortion isnt safe then you arent either. Activists threatening in maryland. May 18th vandals targeted a Medical Clinic in Auburn Alabama and may 205th, the pro abortion activists smashed windows and the Pregnancy Centers and left a threat on the outside of the building at graffiti if abortion is in safe, you arent either. June 2nd, Anchorage Alaska Staff Members Pregnancy Centers upwards in class of the parking lot and graffiti all over the building. June 2nd, credit for [inaudible] n] and including god loves abortion this isnt a safe at the Agape Pregnancy Resource Center in des moines, iowa. The capitol hill Crisis Center was the target of activists who threw red paint on the doors to exit the building and vandals broke windows reports indicate they firebombed the comcast care prolife Pregnancy Center in the university of new york and june 10th there was a fire at the Resource Center in oregon. June 10th in pennsylvania vandals smashed windows and put graffiti on the hope Pregnancy Center june 15th and activists smashed windows june 19th in michigan windows smashed at the pregnancy counseling center, june 202nd jackson michigan. Vandals graffiti then smashed the windows of the office. June 204th Pregnancy Resource Center of Salt Lake City was vandalized within hours of the release of the decision. June 204th. North carolina the gop headquarters were spraypainted with, quote, abortion is in safe, neither are you. June 204th, Saint Anthonys Catholic Church vandalized with authorities saying the suspect painted messages saying they think i cant stay here in the committee. Lynchburg virginia, pro abortion activists vandalized the Pregnancy Center. June 205th Saint Patrick philadelphia defaced with a birth the church and spraypainted on the outside of the church. June 205th june 205th they breached the arizona capital writing the Dobbs Decision overturning roe and june 205th of the vermont Capitol Building was vandalized by protesters who painted his abortions arent saved neither are you. June 205th, cortez colorado. Pregnancy center defaced with graffiti. June 205th, colorado vandals put graffiti and set fire to the life choice and free pregnancy services. June 205th Portland Oregon the rioters vandalized mother and Child Education center for the second time since the Dobbs Decision. The 25th, Portland Oregon all saints Catholic Church had graffiti put on it. June 205th, pro abortion activists destroyed cameras, spray painted the Life Choice Center with all kinds of threatening messages. The 26th tallahassee, florida Saint Phillips church targeted. June 27, Upper West Side of new york, the prochoice network put graffiti if abortions are and save neither are you on the roman Catholic Church. Twentyseventh Portland Oregon protesters targeted the Baptist Church and june 207th in oregon we still got more attempted an arson attack on the two hearts Pregnancy Center. June 27 in washington a man caught on video smashing glass windows, spray painting messages all over the Catholic Church. June 207th in virginia, Pregnancy Center was vandalized with graffiti that included the phrase if abortion isnt safe, you arent safe. I guess proving that people that do this are not just criminals, they also failed english class. June 27 the Resource Center clinic had windows smashed. June 30th in nashville tennessee, a cocktail was thrown through the first floor of the Pregnancy Resource Center and Madison Wisconsin was vandalized with messages on the outside of the church that we cannot read. July 5th in washington, a sound center was vandalized and burned. St. Paul minnesota Crisis Pregnancy Center was vandalized. July 5th in florida the heartbeat of the miami center centerwas vandalized with hate messages. Worchester massachusetts the clinic the prolife Pregnancy Center and i have three more. The center sustained smashed windows and three windows. July 8, massachusetts Crisis Pregnancy Center across the street was hit with paint and july 10 bethesda maryland set fire to the Bethesda United Methodist Church and destroyed the wildwood Baptist Church and july 10 bethesda maryland st. James parish was broken into, set on fire and the pastor spoke about the text saying last night our church was vandalized, people broke in, the overturned statues, they tore down the cross, desecrated the tabernacle he had said the church on fire. A whirlwind of the majority talked about on the steps of the Supreme Court. The whirlwind he talked about that he called for this is that whirlwind. This is just in ten weeks. May 3rd through this past weekend. There are more that have happened since in the last few days. But just in ten weeks that all happened. We should be talking about that and asking the Justice Department what are you doing about this effort that looks to me like the domestic terrorist effort coordinated in so many ways because the method was often the same on so many of the Crisis Centers that is what we should be focused on but no the democrats want to talk about the radical pro abortion agenda and with that i will yield back. Let me just say that no one condones arson for threats, but there is a long history from extremists on both sides. Planned parenthood for many years has been the subject of the attacks. Attacks and even murder. Buffalo new york was murdered because he was an Abortion Provider comes to mind. So, these long lists both sides have these long lists and no one is principal condones any of it. I will now introduce todays witnesses. The frederick professor of law at New York University law. Prior she was of the faculty of the university covering a Berkeley School of law where she also served as the interim dean and previously clerked for sotomayor and the court of appeals to the Second Circuit and the under circuit. Professor murray received a ba from the university of virginia and jd from yale law school. Sarah is the legal director for the Human Rights Campaign where she served in a variety of roles since 2008. Before joining, she served as the Program Manager for the American Association and university of Women Foundation of legal advocacy funds. Shes also an affiliated professor at George Washington university and george mason law school. She received her bachelors degrees from Michigan State university both as a masters degree and a law degree from the university of michigan. Catherine foster president and ceo with the American United for life and the counsel for the alliance for freedom. And the jd from Georgetown University law center. Jim was a plaintiff in the Marriage Equality case and quality of civil rights issues. The careers include being a High School German teacher, relationship manager, Software Education consultant and real estate agent. An undergraduate degree from the university of cincinnati and attended at the Bowling Green university. We welcome or distinguished witnesses and we thank them for participating today. I will begin by swearing in the witnesses. Please rise and raise your right hand. I ask that our remote witnesses please turn on your audio and make sure i can see your face and raise your right hand while i administer the oath. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give us a true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief so help you god . Let the record to show the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you and please be seated. Please note each of your written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. I ask that you summarize your testimony when five minutes. To help you stay within that time there is a light on the table. When the light switches from green to yellow you have one minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red it signals the five minutes of expired. Professor murray, you may begin. On the threats to the individual freedom and a postworld war ii. My name is Melissa Murray and im the frederick professor of law at the New York University school of law where i teach constitutional law, family law and reproductive rights and justice and to serve as the faculty director at the womens leadership network. Prior to my appointment i was a faculty member of the university of california berkeley where i served for 12 years and was the interim dean of the law school. The amendment guarantees all of us liberty and equality and to understand the full extent of the amendments protection it is necessary to appreciate the concerns that animate it in its drafting and ratification. Proposed in the wake of the civil war the Reconstruction Amendments were consciously drafted and ratified for the express purpose of abolishing and repudiating slavery and. Accordingly the 13th amendment abolished slavery and introduced them to the community is equal and was intended to repudiate the cultural conditions that distinguish slavery from freedom including the absence of bodily autonomy and control over procreation, the absence of family integrity and parental rights over children and the ineligibility for civil marriage. Accordingly, the amendment did more than the equality and citizenship of the formerly enslaved and implicit in its understanding of liberty through the repudiation and eradication of these conditions of slavery. The right to abortion recognized in 1973 roe v wade proceeds from this understanding of liberty and protects the decision whether. For nearly 50 years, the Supreme Court consistently affirms the right to abortion as an essential aspect of the constitution guarantees of liberty and equality. Yet despite these longstanding president s is on june 204th, the Supreme Court announced its decision on dobbs versus Jackson Womens Health organization upholding and overruling roe v wade and planned parenthood versus casey. In the decision the Court Declares the constitution no longer protects the right to abortion marking the first time the court had withdrawn a fundamental right but critically the protection of liberty and privacy is not confined but also underlines the recognition of fundamental rights including rights to contraception and procreation, marriage, family relations, childrearing and chd sexual intimacy. Despite the majoritys assurances of the opinion it is the right to choose and it doesntcast doubt on these other precedents. Its Analytical Framework implicates these other liberty rights. To the Reconstruction Amendment the logic that the opinion applies could easily be translated to a range of other rights the court has recognized including the right to contraception, the right to samesex marriage and the right to sexual intimacy. Accordingly, the decision invites reconsideration of griswold versus connecticut which protects the right to contraception and hodges samesex marriage, lawrence versus texas that protects the right to private sexual relations and many other decisions in the courts along longline of substantive due pros cases. And in a separate conference, Justice Thomas made clear his position on the scope of the opinion. There he calls for the court to reconsider all of the courts precedents recognizing fundamental rights under the 14th amendment liberty guaranteed. Although no other justice join his concurrence, it would be a mistake to dismiss Justice Thomas objection to the substantive Due Process Rights as an irrelevant aside. Justice thomas is signaling that the goalposts have moved and the litigators, judges and lawmakers are sure to respond in kind. As the dissent the majority promises the decision to overrule is not undermining the rights to marriage procreation, contraception and family relationships. But these promises cannot be trusted and communities affected by these divisions shouldnt be satisfied with these baseless claims. And i for one am not satisfied with the majoritys hollow assurances. And i call on the committee to protect the associated rights in a manner that is swift and absolute. Thank you. Thank you, professor. Ms. Warbelow, you are now recognized for five minutes. Thank you, chair, Ranking Member jordan and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sarah Warbelow the legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, the nations largest Civil Rights Organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender equality. For the members and supporters nationwide regarding the potential impact of the Dobbs Decision on lgbtq rights. I was born in a postroe world to a mother who fought for her five daughters reproductive rights and loved us all the more for being able to choose us. Im shaken to my core. Loss of Abortion Access is devastating including two lgbtq people who need access to safe and compassionate healthcare including access to abortion, contraception, fertility services. So they can decide if they wish to become parents and when to do so. Dobbs is a radical rejection with 50 years of precedent, bending the body of case law upon which millions of americans including lgbtq people rely. The majority of dobbs emphasized that it didnt need to the decision to overturn roe as impacting the results and other substantive due process cases. Even saying its hard to see how we could be more clear but its cursory analysis fails to meaningfully distinguish dobbs from other substantive due process cases except the point of life. Frustratingly, the decision obliquely references the examples of correctly deciding to reject the decisive overturned prior precedents. Both lawrence expanded the realm of individual rights and recognized prior decisions reflected animus and exclusion of lgbtq people. By contrast, the court in dobbs stripped away the rights of women and lgbtq people to have control over when and whether to bear a child. Distinguishing in this way provides cold comfort that the court might not be willing to reconsider the outcomes of lord and seemed potentially even loving if presented with the opportunity to do so down the line. In fact, Justice Thomas alarming concurrence of disavowing substantive due process entirely. However, should the court to che to do so, these have deep doublestranded constitutional roots. And not only substantive due process, but also equal protection case law. Moreover, lgbtq people have a Robust Alliance interests that impact their relationship to the government and carry financial familial and other obligations. To put it squarely, if lawrence were overturned in a marriage certificate could be evidence of a crime. Today, nearly a dozen states retain laws criminalizing samesex relationships and 35 states have laws or constitutional amendments on the books. They bore samesex couples from marrying despite the acceptance for lgbtq people coming out at a cost. Antilgbtq hate crimes in violence are at historically high levels. State legislatures have been particularly hostile since the decision. Since 2015, 1200 antilgbtq bills have been filed with state legislators with perceived at risk the state legislators are likely to readable those efforts. To recriminalize intimacy between consenting adults and undermine marriage of samesex couples. Justice thomas concurrence means legislators should pass laws in conflict with existing precedent and the hopes that will result in the president being overturned. State employees emboldened may gauge indiscriminate ray behavior for purposes of setting up a test case. The aggregated way lawrence could be enforced a new. No single action can repair the constitutional crisis with radical rejection of precedent but in addition to the Womens Health protection act, the important steps congress can take to decide the damage. The respect for marriage act, the john lewis Voting Rights enhancement act and the equality act with all provide important protections as we fight to restore the right to abortion and other rights protected by substantive due process. This list is not exhaustive but the starting point. I recognize with five minutes. I come before you, i wanted to speak for all americans who value human life. For every mom and dad, every, every young person, every person who sought to advance human right to life. We survived roe v wade but ruth did not survive. We are not living at the post road america. So what comes next . What tragically does not own that they pro life america. The greatest threat to individual freedoms in a post roe world remains the reality that some would elevate their desire to kill over and against the natural rate of incredible opportunities to proclaim theres no liberty without length. The promotion along with witnesses worship money and special interest continue to wield a deadly power in washington. Todays hearing is a testament to the menace of todays powerbrokers bratwurst, abortion activist post row are telling us that now, now in this incredible moment when lawmakers can finally uphold the human right to life, now that we might finally have the freedom to live, its not all of our other freedoms are somehow at risk. It is hysterical, it is nonsense. Just not true. Anyone who has read the Dobbs Decision can tell you that. But there is good news. We can do better. Its in our nature its to do better. Just a few days ago, challenges us to make birth free for all americans. And i agree with her. Pregnancy, childbirth, postpartum care should always be free from others. That is what todays hearing should be about. How to serve american mothers, fathers, and families. Lets have a hearing about that. Republicans boldly and courageously lead the expansion of maternal and prenatal care during the reagan era. Theres truly no reason why making birth free for americans cannot be the bipartisan work of our time. The defining work of the congress of focus our attention and focus the killing power of dramatic consequence my first child never lived to take her first breath because of abortion. It remains a scandal condones or celebrates abortion violence. Out of that trauma came clarity of my vocation my lifes work as a constitutional attorney and as a human rights advocate. As president ceo of americans united for life, ive been so order to travel the state and the people of all ages, backgrounds and beliefs. Americans who are united by their commitment to protecting our first and most intimate individual freedom. To live. We know it pro activist one. Unrestricted abortion available always and everywhere. Every individual freedom we hear about today starts in their minds with the freedom to kill. But there is no such freedom. Abortion activism requires first dehumanizing our most vulnerable brothers and sisters. And then hardening our hearts to the holistic challenges of living and thriving together. Contrary to what you may have heard this is not a zerosum game. No one needs to lose for others to win. We can only enjoy our authentic freedom by living with the spirit of love, or solidarity with hospitality. The truth is, living and thriving together is hard, killing is easy. But the most prosperous, most powerful must free nation in history it is our responsibility to the right thing with the gifts we have. Not because it is easy because it is hard. The common good of this American Republic depends on rediscovering what we once knew. America will be great if america is good. Not her greatness will vanish away like a morning cloud. Lets be good to one another. Lets be better, lets heal, lets grow, thank you. Thank you. You are not recognized for five minutes. Next i am no threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. I am part of we the people. All people in this nation including lgbtq plus people are. I am case that made Marriage Equality the law of the land. I felt joy at the lawfully wedded man. Nine years after my husbands death i still find comfort as his widower. Everything changed when john and i said i do. We felt different, we felt better, without more complete for the state we called home, ohio, ignored our lawful maryland marriage but make no mistake ohio harmed us. John was dying of als. We can with their marriage license in hand doctors, hospitals and others could refuse to service with a confirming from johns room. John was nearing the end of his life they had a right to ignore a dying mans important relationship to ignore any request will using john and i made as husbands. The moral . Is that just . Is that right . We were not equal in life even when we are most vulnerable to the terminal illness. Johns death certificate has less official record as a person ohio would say he was unmarried and my name would not be listed as his surviving spouse. In the future we would not be more moralized furniture together Jones Family Cemetery plot because the deep states that only direct descendents of his grandparents and their spouses were allowed. I would not to death because they consider me a stranger. But i was no stranger. John and ive been a couple for more than 20 years. We share everything with each other. We left, loved, disagreed. We dreamed together we struggle together to build a world together. I became his fulltime caregiver is drunk most every ability due to als. Nothing was easy about that. But when you love someone you care for them no matter what. If that not management have no idea what is. Lawful marriage ceremony get to ohio, our marriage did not exist but we were treated as less than full american citizens. We were considered separate. Yes, we could secure every legal document solution available to us. As a burden unfairly placed on samesex couples and opposite received those rights and responsibilities of protections by simply sitting idea. They could never provide john the dignity death certificate. Families are handling states ignore their marriages. Birth certificates without both parents names. The end of the Child Welfare system is the home of the only other. They have known . When the parent be able to see their child in a hospital and make decisions for the older child him through the pain was her take their last breath house any of this profamily or the best interest of a child . No couple no family should be forced to go through great financial expense and legal effort the rights and protections that come automatically with marriage. If those are uncomfortable with our marriages and our work say that is the solution. That is not marriage it sets our relationships or something less worthy. Discomfort or distaste is not a justifiable reason to harm our families. If you do not protect Marriage Equality missing we do not lie with we the people. Youre telling us we do not deserve life, lived to the pursuit of happyness the happiness find a loving family. It is shameful for any member of congress to believe that. No relationship or a person has been harmed because two men, two women are two non binary people got married. Those couples gained so much rights protection dignity and suspect. When United States to argue its okay for our marriages our families to finish but crossing the state border the order within our own nation is appalling. It is harmful it is unamerican to tell the nations ltp their families. When theyre deployed to a different state . Is that how you think them for their service . I show them respect question peoples features parents felt joy and hope for their children. Humans start not Marriage Equality she wouldve killed yourself. Let that sink in. How many other pfizer say that david will be lost him and shall be done to be taken away . That will make the United States more perfect union. Rights to life, liberty the pursuit of happyness. Do the right thing protect the right to marry. Protect our right to privacy in intimate relations. Thank you for this time. Next i think all the witnesses for their testimony. Will now proceed on the five minute rule. Want to know we expect very long series of books this afternoon. I will have to be very strict with the gavel to ensure all members of an opportunity for both your call. Without for myself for five minutes. Professor teresa dobbs would open the door for majority in future congress to fascinate abortion . Whats it does. Next the dissent mourns possible majority decision stick with the Constitutional Rights to abortion a stick out of a tower. Notably Justice Congress also written a separate concurring opinion in the quest to eliminate doctrine of substantive due process quote at the earliest opportunity. Connecticut vortexes hodges for some reason he left out loving. Can you discuss the majority opinion in dobbs police to charge other cases about the individual freedoms . The courts of profound rejection of longstanding precedent over 50 years is terrifying. Decisions is made nor for advancing the rights of the people. Medical care for people. What important is that in the future the court is situated in such a way that is not willing to apply the dobbs precedent to other cases. Should not do so. However, the court is not given us. Quick steal and greet you should picks up early and repealing the defense of Marriage Equality . Works the app is a think of this nation erupted in the time of this incredible hostility toward lgbtq people. Ive a deep fear that still remains it is bubbling up once again. Its important for congress to take critical steps to make sure Marriage Equality remains along the land. Quick respect for marriage act repealing was introduced by me many years ago. Cripes thank you for your moving testimony for because of your bravery millions of people the United States now have their marriage recognized as legally valid. Can you share this more what is like for you and your husband before the Supreme Court recognized samesex mask marriage is a constitutional right . But it was harmful. It was hurtful and committed lawfully to the person you love. The most important person in your world to make those promises those valves and commitment to each other and a lawful ceremony and have the state we call home ignore that. To say that we do not exist. From the simple fact that is john was dying of als, as i mentioned in my remarks, the fact that ohio did not recognize our marriage for any and every miracle under professional paramedic the ability to deny me access to johns room. To be with john that could have prevented me from being withdrawn as he took his last breath. Im to know that we werent just being ignored. The state of ohio as well as other states in this nation first went simply ignore our marriage. Tents and we do not care that you do not matter you do not exist. That is incredibly harmful. For the sheer fact were denied the ability to be memorialized in johns Family Cemetery plot which is where he wanted to be. We phased was pervasive. It was terrible. Most americans we are supposed to be part of we the people for the defense of marriage act of the state level and throughout the nation told us we clearly did not belong. They were not part of we of the people. Our marriage was not important for equipped thank you professor murray, would you wish to clarify anything that is been set for the record . Im sorry i did not hear . Quick to jump to clarify anything that is been set for the record . I just want to emphasize representative jordan made this opinion was consigned to the right of abortion is nonsensical but sprinklers in the logic of this opinion but despite the majoritys assurances this project could be extended very easily their other rights for Justice Thomas concurrence make that very clear to an open invitation to more litigation were singed challenges for states are proposing limiting as it happens third and as pharmacist using to dispense certain forms of drugs because they may be in addition to dealing with other Health Conditions protect my time is expired. I thank you, mr. Chairman. Hardworking families continue to struggle to make ends meet in the face of soaring inflation not just direct 9. 1 the highest in 41 years, were holding yet another hearing designed to divide the American People are distracted from the failed policies of the by demonstration. It is unfortunate this is how the majority is choosing to use our limited time. But it does present opportunity to dispel a number of misconceptions that have been disseminated by pro abortion radicals and allies in the media. The first and most widely spread misconception by returning from the outlet abortion. That is simply not true. Instead the Dobbs Decision returns the power to regulate abortion to the states, or always should have been and was prior to row. Meta public health, safety, welfare is properly delegated to the states by the tenth amendment. Dobbs really felt them to really abortion is better addressed by the peoples elected representatives in state legislatures or by ninth unelected, unaccountable judges who serve on the court. The irony is the privilege the ninth unelected judges to continue to control abortion decisions are upset by the very decision and ninth unelected judges just rendered abortion. And there ninth unelected unaccountable judges to make his decisions. Second with the exception is dobbs overturning some sort of secret legal doctrine enshrined in the history of constitutional law. The truth is the legal doctrine and questions substantive due process is a much more checkered and murky pass abortion advocates would have you believe. One of its release applications substantive due process is by chief Justice Roger tony appointed by democrat Andrew Jackson by the way to the court to uphold the right of slave owners to own slaves on the dred scott decision for that reprehensible decision led many much of the birth of the Republican Party, the election of Abraham Lincoln the emancipation proclamation. A few decades later the court is the doctrine to overturn state efforts to implement more labor regulations organ support proposed rules interfered with the fundamental right to contract. On the version of substantive due process threatened to derail the new deal in the mid 1930s, fdr threatened to pass the Supreme Court, where they heard that before . Not surprising by the possibly going as opposed to substantive due process when imperative there were more than happy to utilize the theory when it met their needs, especially in roe versus wade. Ultimately for over one or 50 or substantive due process is been employed by liberal and conservative justices alike defined rights and liberties were other legal theories without adequate support the position they wanted to adopt. In some way substantive due process of justices fit square pegs into round holes. And that is not likely to change. Any argument to the common trait is speculative but thats an issue that ought to be addressed to the dangers of vibratory rhetoric this being employed by pro abortion radicals, the democrats have been singlemindedly focus on the rhetoric that led up to tragic events of generally six in it for the most part they have been cycling similar language and tactics are being used by their supporters we know the attempt on Justice Kavanaughs life as well as harassment that he takes just a week ago less widely not the threat and a Pregnancy Care Center across the countries mr. Jordan reverted. Following the leak of the Supreme Court draft decision and violent abortion groups targeted these facilities branches a center demanded Crisis Pregnancy Centers may check out all across the country. Over the years a number of facilities fingerprint work for women and their unborn children. And then when the children are born. Mr. Response from the atmosphere you probably most familiar with these facilities. Could you discuss what actually takes place in the facilities of the soul is affected recently . Absolutely for the Prolife Movement stands behind and supports women concluding with a network of 3000 plus Pregnancy Resource Centers. With support women any cause of range of Services Including pregnancy tests, counseling, diapers, Material Resources like baby formula, all kinds of resources, baby clothing, training, relationship counseling. Whatever you need to infer that research there that set up camp. Chris the time expired mr. Johnson of georgia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Considering i went to the drastic edict overturn roe traded Guiding Principles and extracted a price on its legitimacy. My monthly with you your band like leslie but was before the court overturn roe. The score is in a major crisis. Professor murray true the dogs decision which snuffed out the reproductive freedom of women politicians and state legislatures and control of womens bodily autonomy, operates to really get those women to secondclass operates to really get those women to second class status . And if you believe, that why . Thank you, representative johnson. It is true that the dobbs opinion and withdrawing this fundamental right for women reduces them to secondclass citizens. The court acknowledged in planned parenthood versus casey, the 1992 decision, that reaffirms the right to abortion, recognized in row, that the right to control ones reproductive capacity is essential to womens equality as equal citizens. Again, taking this right away limits the ability of women to control their destinies it is a right that was recognized in the 14th amendment. The control over procreation. Which had been denied enslaved women was recognized in the 14th amendment. It has now been withdrawn by this court. Thank you, its a fact, isnt it, the majoritys reasoning in dobbs, really, the dissent, the concurring opinion of a Justice Thomas implicates a plethora of other rights recognized under the 14th amendment. Liberty and privacy guarantees. It implicates it, indicates, it tells us that the court those rights are in jeopardy. Justice thomas cited in his concurring opinion, even the right against for sterilization found and skinner versus oklahoma, would you agree . Yes, that is exactly right, Justice Thomass concurrence invites challenges to the long line of substance to process cases. Which begins in 1923, with meyer versus nebraska recognition of parental autonomy. And going all the way forward to 2015 obergefell v. Hodges, which recognize the samesex marriages. Those rights include, those 14th amendment due process privacy and liberty guarantees implicate the decision in loving versus virginia. Would you explain that . Would you give me some explanation of why Justice Thomas would exclude court review of that due process in his concurrence opinion . I agree, it is a curious omission. The right to marry the person of ones choice, as the court recognized and 1967s lobbying versus virginias part of the essential civil rights of man, the court said that in its decision. It also decides the decision on equality grounds. Noting that virginians racial activity act of 1927 proceeded from an interest in enshrining white supremacy. It struck it down on both equal protection grounds also noted there are significant due process concerns because marriage is a fundamental right. I am confused as to why it was not included in Justice Thomass long laundry list of rights to be overturned. It surely would be there. Could it be that he himself enjoys that right, conferred under loving . It would not be the first time that someone offered freedom for me, but not for the. That is pretty hypocritical. Professor murray, whats a threat that is a Dobbs Decision posed to access to contraception and other Reproductive Health care . I think the right to contraceptives threats it linked to eugenics and racial genocide. I think there is no reason to include that in this opinion. Given the other reasons the court has for overturning roe v. Wade. I speculate that the reason that curious footnote is included, to see the ground for associate the right to contraception with racial injustice. So it may be struck down in the future. I thank you, i thank the witnesses for their testimony and their time today. With that, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. I want to mention to the members, and the witnesses, i said im going to have a very strict gavel. A light tap will be a 15 second warning. Miss fish back . Thank, you mister chair. For nearly five decades the American People were stripped of their ability to decide on the issue of abortion through elections and elected officials. Over 60 million unborn babies paid the price. Roe v. Wade was on constitutionally imposed, abortion policy on the American People. Legislated by unelected judges, it left americans with no voice. Now the Supreme Court gave the decision back to the states and the american citizens. In case we have forgotten, this is what democracy looks like. Elected leaders, accountable to the people they represent, they proposed, debate, and passed laws that people support. Justice alito explicitly stated in the majority opinion that the opinion only impacts abortion. Arguing that abortion is fundamentally different from the other privacy issues like contraceptive, marriage, because it destroys a life of a human being. The left wants you to believe that republicans are extremists. When the fact is, the majority of americans agree there should be some restrictions on abortion. Americans do not support abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy. This is especially true when they learn all the scientific facts that have come out since the roe decision was put down. My colleagues seem to be conveniently ignoring this information. Thanks to advances in science, modern medicine, the humanity of the unborn child is undeniable. At six weeks, and unborn child has a beating heart. And facial features begin to form. By 15 weeks, unborn childrens major organs are functioning, they constructed sam, they have fully formed noses, lips, eyes, and eyebrows, and they have facial expressions. And they are capable of feeling pain. Upon knowing this, it makes sense the majority of americans support some sorts of limits. Despite these facts, the left is proposing legislation that goes even further than roe did. They want abortion on demand up until birth with no exceptions, no regulations, no limits. This is extreme. The left also wants to paint the prolifers as people who do not care about the health of the mother. This is fundamentally untrue. Prolifers care about the mother and the child. The unborn child and the mother. For decades, we have cared about the mothers, providing them with resources necessary for them to choose life, caring for the mother and the child. There are over 27, maybe i should be corrected, over 3000 prolife Pregnancy Centers across the country. A stand ready to be there for the expectant mother, regardless of their circumstances. My colleagues on the left are full of scare tactics about what this country will look like now that dobbs has been decided. And that roe is no longer the law of the land. We cannot let their fearmongering and their inflammatory language pull us away from reality. The reality is, roe has been overturned. The abortion policy has been put back in the hands of states elected officials where it should be. I would like to yield the rest of my time to miss foster. I believe there is a question that he wanted to answer. You are cut off. Yes, the Prolife Movement supports women at all costs. We support them with this network of thousands of Pregnancy Care Centers. That outnumber abortion facilities, 5 to 1 in our nation. In communities throughout our nation, not just in, you know, in the big cities where the abortion businesses seem to target. We are throughout our nation. We are providing women with all kinds of resources. The financial these are, since the housing resources, the Material Resources, they need for their babies, and their needs for postpartum care and the need for a relationship and job training Going Forward so they can live a full and fulfilling life. And they can thrive and whatever they choose to do. I am incredibly proud to serve on the board of a Pregnancy Center, to support Pregnancy Centers with our time and treasure. Women deserve better than abortion. We deserve care, we deserve support. That is exactly what Pregnancy Centers offer. Thank you very much, id like to add that while the Pregnancy Care Centers are doing their work with volunteers and raising money to do that, the abortion industry is a 1. 6 billion dollar industry. That is what the democrats are protecting. Thank you very much, i yield back my time. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Cohen . Thank, you mister chairman. First, i would like to ask miss murphy if you question. Its big got over pretty much, but id like to get into the legal distinctions of griswold and roe versus obergefell and loving. Two of those cases were decided only on due process, and the other were both substantial due process and equal protection . That is correct, representative cohen. If thats correct, i thought it was. I appreciate you clarifying for. Me how could one distinguish the case on gay marriage from the case on interracial marriage . Is there a way to distinguish it at all legally . To my mind, theres no way to distinguish between both of them. They acknowledge that there is a right to marry or not. Implicit in the right, is the right to marry a person of ones choice. It was interesting to me when i saw some Clarence Thomas not mention loving. Which, of course, ended what was archaic and abhorrent policy of telling people you could not marry somebody of a different race. Certainly in affected senator mcconnell, and affected Justice Thomas. My good friend back from memphis, judge shugerman, so many others. The lady from the minority side, miss foster, miss fletcher . Foster. Thank you, miss foster. You are constitutional expert, as i understand. If you agree that loving versus virginias indistinguishable will from obergefell, if taken up, if justice Clarence Thomas suggested, it could be and, probably would be struck down by this court . Im a constitutional attorney specializing and bio ethics, not in marriage. I would point out that in loving, that decision was based on equal protection with about two paragraphs on substantive due process. Obergefell was based on both equal protection and substantive due process. Woven together and Justice Kennedys opinion. I would simply say that when it comes to those cases, unlike roe and casey, we havent seen a Court Challenge since those cases. As opposed to roe and casey, when we saw Supreme Court case on abortion. On average every two and two and a half years or so. Ever since miss foster, miss foster, thank you. I do want to say. This even though they are just two paragraphs, they are the same. They are similar. I would suggest that your expertise, if you specialize an ethics, i think the right to marry, the person of your choice is at risk, is only held up by a thin thread between two paragraphs in a few more paragraphs, that should include your subject matter of ethics and the law in the court. There is nothing more unethical than the court and the United States saying you cannot marry the person you want to because of race because ive gender. Miss fish bach had a nice argument about the childs six weeks image of the 15 weeks. She sounded much like Justice Roberts who said the same thing. Said we should not repeal roe v. Wade, we should uphold the mississippi law, which is the 15week ban. Justice roberts was outvoted by his five more radical members of the court. Who took the federal Society Pledge to go to the court and get rid of roe v wade. And they did their instructions. They were pavlovian. And they responded. And that has hurt american women. Someone earlier said, and i hate to think this, because i love america. I am an american and i love america and i love this country, i think its a great country, they said we are the freest country in the world. I think it with miss foster. But right now, canada is the freest country in the world. And there are a few other countries like canada that are more free than america. Where we cut women away from the opportunity to get their families and their bodies to be their choices. The whole idea going back to the states as a red herring. The fact is, the hardcore red states of the southeast, one time known as the confederacy. There are about one or two states that would not ban abortion entirely. Those states did not offer many votes for the civil rights laws. They were passed by congress. Without many votes from those red states. Even the red states outside of the confederacy. So, we have to be concerned. The idea of the states having power was not because the states were concerned about oppressive government or abortion. It was because of slavery. And slavery is wrong. And outlawing abortion is wrong. And outlying gay marriage is wrong. I yield back. Mr. Johnson of louisiana. Mr. Cohen is wrong, canadas most free country in the world, young people. America is the greatest nation in the world. We are the most free, most successful, most powerful nation. Because finally, weve been trying to live up to the ideals articulated in the declaration of independence. Finally now the Supreme Court director 50 years, nearly 50 years of an atrocity, has brought us back will yield . I will not. Yield your comments are absurd. Your comments are absurd. It is mr. Johnsons time, mr. Cohen. The first inalienable, individual freedom is the right to be born, its the right to life. We boldly declared that and our nations birth certificate. America should continue to uphold the sanctity of human life. And state and local and federal government officials having duty, a constitutional responsibility, to protect that fundamental right. All life is precious. There is an inherent compelling interest in protecting unborn children, because they are unable to protect themselves. The radical advocates of abortion are completely unhinged. They are seeking to trample on the individual freedoms of all those who disagree with them. Over the weekend, the left wing Activists Group shutdown dc offered 200 dollar bounties for public sightings of Supreme Court justices. That they disagree with. Its obvious, the point of their tweets, all the attention they are trying to gather their, to get people to harass conservative justices when theyre out in public. They dont have any individual freedoms. Hey, man, they are fair game. Then senator elizabeth warren, i mean, she is completely unhinged now. She said prolife Pregnancy Centers should be shut down all around the country. It is appalling for her to say that. There are 2700 Pregnancy Centers all around this country. All 50 states. They are supported by over 10,000 licensed medical professionals. They annual server approximately 2 million women and men. I was Legal Counsel for many of these Pregnancy Centers. I can tell you for my own experience, they do exceptional, and critical. Work why would anyone want to shut down Pregnancy Centers that exist to provide counseling, care, aid, comfort to struggling mothers who just want to have their babies . It defies logic. The answer is simple. Their extreme agenda demands. It speaking of extreme agendas, let me tell you what my friends on the other side of the aisle are looking for, okay, they filed an hr 80 to 96 in this congress. They call it the Womens Health protection act. In 2022. We call it the abortion on demand until birth act. You want to know why . Its extreme. It would create a National Standard to allow for abortions for unborn children for any reason at any stage of pregnancy up until birth. Read the bill. Thats not talking point. And allows for discriminatory abortions on the basis of the baby sex, race, and disability. It would override prolife laws and prohibit states from enacting legislation that protects unborn children such. As protection for babies who are down syndrome and other disabilities. It removes common sense protections for women and children. For example, the abortion on demand until birth act, the democrats bill, it would not allow states to enact laws to ensure parental involvement for minors. Lost to protect women from coercion. They dont care. Its zeal for this demand the overall of. That there beale include vague language we could also weaken conscious protections for medical professionals. And limit the right to refuse to participate in abortion. Do you think that theyre not on board for this, guess what, on september 24th of last year, all but one democrat in the house of representatives voted on an almost identical bill. Go hr 30 7 55. Abortion on demand until birth. That is with this agenda demands. Miss foster said it so well earlier. You mentioned this agenda, it begins with dehumanizing the unborn child. I have a minute left. But in my experience, my colleagues here are not able to acknowledge that what is inside the mothers womb is actually a child. In your, work your experience, had that been yours as well . It has. Then there is a reason, i think, they will not acknowledge it is a trial. It will allow them to pursue this radical abortion on demand until birth. I believe, and this is for all the young people here, and those watching. I believe if you can end this debate, if you can take people to the medical reality of the humanity of the unborn child, we win. This is a prolife country, increasingly so, because we have medical technology. We have 40 ultrasounds, no one can lie to us anymore and tell us, its a blob of tissue. That its just a clump of cells. This is a baby. At six, weeks and more as a heartbeat, a 15 weeks, it can feel pain, like its, not myth has eyebrows. , lips, knows the whole thing. Look at the reality, folks. Do not be, do not let them obscure the facts. We are prolife country, we should, be im out of time, i yield back. The chairman yields back, miss jacksonlee. I thank the gentleman very much, since were the middle of a tutorial, let me speak from the. Hearts be from the years of service on this committee. Years of knowledge. Ruined lives. With criminal approaches to trying to before roe, to help persons, women, make their determination on their reproductive freedom. This is an absurd posture that is being taken here. I respect the religious beliefs of all. And i respect that there are differences in this nation. It is an outrage what is going on here in the United States. Because it is clearly evident that we are in trouble. The ninth amendment is clear, along with the other protections, that if it is not enumerated, it still does not deny me my right to privacy. My right to marry who i want to marry. My right for once in life to be able to assure that i can bury someone of a different race. You know what states rights are . Hanging black people. You know what states rights are . The denial of civil rights. Thats what states rights can be. Leave it to the elected persons of the state if they had done, that i would still be a secondclass citizen. It took the 13th amendment to say that slavery was illegal. Let me first of all say, we know that in ohio, a tenyearold rape victim was denied an abortion and forced to travel across state lines access care. We know that a package was left at a Womens Health care clinic in austin, texas, an explosive device went off. We know that a planned parenthood clinic in columbus was vandalized, satan dana baby killers. We know in baltimore, and Abortion Provider, health provider, health care clinic, with anti abortion graffiti was attacked. A planned parenthood clinic in new york was vandalized by juvenile. And unidentified person set fire to a planned parenthood clinic. We can go on and on. Is that america . I dont think. So professor murray, help me understand. Ive always had the greatest admiration for the legal prominence of the Supreme Court. I want to have you expand these words very quickly, as my time runs out. Justice gorsuch said, in confirmation hearings, it has been reaffirmed, a good judge will consider it as president. This is reference to roe v. Wade of the u. S. Supreme court worthy as a treatment of precedent like any other. Brett kavanaugh, regarding roe v. Wade, it is settled as a president of Supreme Court entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And then amy coney barrett, i will obey all rules of story by decisis, if a question comes up before me about whether casey or any other case to be overruled, that i will follow the law of stare decisis. Applying it as a court is articulating applying to all factors. Professor murray, trying to see where you are. There you are. Good to see you. What does that do you in imploding, imploding, the american concept of justice and the role of the Supreme Court. That has now caused the clashes of American People, one at each other, because the refuge that we look for in civil rights in marriage, in who to marry, in the defense of marriage, is no longer there. Professor murray . You are exactly right, representative lee. This principle and indeed, roe is a settled precedent. It has repeatedly been reaffirmed until was overruled on june 24th. That provides predictability for individuals. The assurance that they know their rights are protected. I think part of the outrage that you are describing is because people in this country recognize that this decision was upheld for more than 50 years. The only thing that has changed since those 50 years has been the composition of this court. The installation of a 6 to 3 conservative what does it say about confirmation hearings . When judges are under oath . Again, these judges promised to follow precedent. It is clear that they did not. The confirmation hearings, if there are to assure the American People about edges of philosophy, i think the American People have been hoodwinked. I thank you. We need to expand the court. With that, mister chairman, i yield back. The gentlelady leads back, mr. Gates. Sorry, mr. Issa. Thank you, miss foster are, you familiar with the proposal by the majority to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices to get the outcome they want. I am. Are you familiar with a little more esoteric than hr, 48 86 the Circuit Court judgeship act. Yes. Which would add 203 additional federal judges selected by the president and the democrat majority and the senate at this time. It is interesting to me everyone seems to be so interested in this court making a decision. It looks like they are ready to simply choose some additional people to make the opposite decision. Is that the politicization of the court in a way that we have never seen it before . It certainly is. And that is exactly what Justice Alito repudiated for the court in his majority opinion in dobbs. In looking at dobbs for a moment, it certainly does undo previous decision of the court. Is that unheard of for the court decades later . To reconsider decisions in light of some changes, not just in the court, but in the times . It certainly is not unheard of. In fact, just two days ago, there was a hearing in the senate in which one of the senators was talking about the janice case, just a couple of years ago. Theres been numerous other cases that follow those lines. Since miss Sheila Jackson lee was up before us, and seem to be so certain but you should never, never, never overturn president , and that these people lied. What would happen if dred scott were still in place today . Now, i will go there. Because freedom is what we are discussing. In this case, freedom to live for the unborn. What would happen, what would happen if we simply said, once the court makes a decision will the gentleman yield . Of course not. There is a reason why there are certain factors that the justices examine wind going through a stare decisis analysis. If those factors are met a case may be right for reconsideration. Obviously, we do have stare decisis for a reason, we follow precedent because its correct and right and constitutional. Not just because a few rogue men wrote some words down on paper a few decades ago. Lets go into the decision that was overturned. Is it fair to say that the previous decision, including roe, basically said that the unborn child had no rights, that all the rights, up until in the case of california, and many other states, birth, belong to the mother and the mother exclusively . That was essentially the law of the land federally guaranteed . Yes. And by overturning it, does that inherently give any rights to the unborn child . It does not. As we speak here today, weve simply taken away the denial of all rights of the child, and left to the states, the opportunity to balance the rights of an unborn child, viable and able to feel pain. Viable unable to be born alive. Is that right . Thats the right. Thats the balance of the court attempted and failed in roe and casey. This court has achieved it. Isnt one of the inherent flaws in roe and casey that what they did was they were only giving right to the mother, and never recognize the right of the living child inside the womb . Correct. I am a californian. So i know that my speaker, Speaker Pelosi, and that my state considers that a child already outside the womb still doesnt have rights in my state. Because we still are effectively a partial birth abortion state. The question i think for all of us here today is, do we trust the legislatures of the state to give rights to the unborn child, or the nearly born child, or the chest born child. Or should we in fact be sitting here, instead of discussing how to codify abortion up to the date of birth. Should we be talking about the rights and respect for life. The respect for that child. Is that what you would prefer we do here today . It certainly is. We should be talking about protection, respect, dignity, and equal rights for all human beings. I will close by simply saying, the chairman of this committee, when i first came to congress, chairman high, would be having that discussion if he was here alive today. He would be talking about respect for life. And i yield back. The gentleman yields back, mr. Cicilline. Thank, you mister chairman. On june 4th, the Supreme Court radical majority made clear they were not only gutting 50 years of womens established Constitutional Rights to make their own reproductive decisions, but that abortion was just the first in a laundry list of rights that they were prepared to eviscerating. The right to privacy and intimate relation, the right to raise your children how you see fit, the right to contraception, the right to same sex marriage. And when people talk about the radical advocates, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have described, i am a radical advocate for personal freedom and individual liberty. And our democracy is premised on the notion of basic, individual autonomy. You dont let states or even the federal government takeaway rights that the constitution establishes. And so, its not a question of do we trust states to do it, it is do we trust the individual . In this case, it is women, to make their own Health Care Decisions. But it is astonishing to me but anyone who has read this decision is not worried about many other rights that are at issue, and entering danger. Regardless of which are Political Party is, regardless of which your views are on abortion, there are lots and lots of rights also at risk. I hope all of america is paying attention to this decision. Because your rights, wellestablished freedoms, are hanging in the balance. And that brings me to my first question, miss warbelow, thank you for your incredible work, for your testimony. Thank you mr. Oversell for your really compelling testimony. For your courage and bravery in having and helping to bring a qualities millions and millions of people in this country. If you look at Justice Alitos adherence to a legal philosophy known as original intent, which digs involves examining the can you explain why this method of legal reasoning is outdated and antithetical to a modern society, particularly to members of the lgbtq community, who has historically been discriminated against, if you follow that reasoning, they never live in a country and they can live lives free of discrimination . Finally, with the equality act address that . First, its important to note that its very difficult to discern original intent. We cannot always notice in the mind of a legislator when they pass a law. In fact, people may have conflicting reasons for passing a law. That is why, basing on original, others piece of legislation, or a constitutional amendment, its a flawed approach to legal analysis. Beyond that, it, taking that approach, continues to privilege those with power, individuals, lgbtq people, people of color, particularly black and brown people, people with disabilities, and women, will continue to be disadvantaged if we are always taking into account what was written, you know, more than two centuries ago by white men who were interested in maintaining control of society. Rather than sharing a quality with all. Which as so eloquently said, this move cynically weaponizes a deeply rooted history and tradition of little protective liberty and vast inequality to eradicate the modern america of liberty inequality, which is exactly what you just said. Professor murray, under roe and casey the right to abortion was implicitly read into the 14th amendment, due process clause, and obviously it is deemed a fundamental right. In dobbs, Justice Alito rejects this approach, reasoning again, only rights that are deeply rooted in the nations history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of order and liberty are fundamental rights. What are the implications of adhering to this logic for other rights and specifically, what would the impact be in addition to that on in vitro fertilization of state abortion law as interpreted as granting fertilized human eggs, legal rights and protections . Thank you for the question. Let me reiterate, the right to choose your procreative future is not just implicit in the guarantee of liberty, it was actually explicit in the 14th amendments, gratifiers views of this antislavery amendment. So it proceeds from that it does have important repercussions for in vitro fertilization. As you, know part of the in vitro requires the selective of embryos. There are lots of questions about whether or not this on the right to procreate can have broad repercussions for assisting Reproductive Technology including a artsy and ivf. Thank you, mister chairman im asking introduced into the record the mid states freedom into the world 2002 country report, because sadly, americas less free than it was just a few years ago. So, this isnt a question about what we think, this is a report that shows that we have slipped. America has less free. The Supreme Court is attacking our freedoms. We need to stand up and codify everything we can to protect all americans so they can be free from discrimination of any kind. And recognize the autonomy of every single person. Objection of the time the gentlemans time has retire expired. Miss foster, im familiar with a lot of Pregnancy Centers in my district, in my state. Does your Pregnancy Center care but you are involved with does that care and when the child is born . It does. Not would happen after . That after the child is born the, pregnancy sector continues to be there for the woman, partner, family, providing Material Resources such as baby clothes, baby formula, diapers, any other needs providing training, parenting training, job skills training, a number of other resources, whatever the young woman, the young family needs. The Pregnancy Center is there for them. Such a contrast that you would care for the mother, care for the life of the child. Such a contrast to what i learned in multiple conversations with the former director of planned parenthood in texas, she was bright and shining star in her high school, got pregnant, and then was urged to have an abortion and didnt. So she didnt go to college. And then, years later, found that there was an opening for director of planned parenthood. She applied and was thrilled to have gotten a position. She was very, very smart. But during her time there, she said the emphasis was not in the monthly directors meeting, it was not on the number of abortions. Even though that is where the huge money came from. It was on how many girls did you get started on Birth Control. And the younger the better. Because they were taught through their directorship planned parenthood that the younger you can get a girl started on Birth Control, the better the odds are that she will forget to take the pill, she will get pregnant, and then she will have an abortion. They are nurtured, i use that word very loosely, by people that work at planned parenthood. Look, your mother is not going to understand, you come to me, dont go to your mother, i will understand. And they got that relationship, and would really ended up driving her away from it all, was the thought that they would come between me and my daughter. And that was too much. Weve been hearing my body my choice from people for so long. And thats true, its also true we had that fraud exposed when we heard from so many who had been screaming my body my choice, as they scream that everybody has to have an experimental drug, which has caused great damage and death to people, it alters the rna, but you are going to have to have that injected into your body. I dont care what your biology is. So that was exposed as not really being as consistent, actually, coming into the froth area. But let me tell you, we start here in this room and listen to an abortionist talk about how he did the late term abortion. And our daughter was born 8 to 10 months premature, i mean weeks, premature. We did not know if she would live or not. My wife had to stay in the hospital and she encouraged me to follow the ambulance going to the higher level neil little icu. And the doctor there said, she cant recognize your face because her eyes arent working that well yet. She knows your voice, shes been listening to your voice for months. So talk to her. And, you know, touch her little face. And you know, you could be there for two hours and take a break. And come back. They had a hooked up to all these things. And her breathing was very erratic, very shallow. Her heart was very erratic, very fast. But eventually the doctor came over and said, have you noticed the monitors . They have stabilized. He said, she is drawn strength and life from you. And the thought that anybody that cares about other people could want to have a child like that, have their arms and legs ripped off. The time of the gentleman has expired. The time of the gentleman has expired. Its just an abomination. Thank you so much, mister chairman. You know, its disappointing that here we are today and 2022 with all of the challenges that we are facing, still fighting the same old fight for individual rights. But here we are. That is a fight that will well continue to fight and should be fighting. Why is it so easy to call the vicious rape of a ten Year Old Girl a hoax . Ally . A political stunt . Police certainly didnt think so when they made their arrest. Why is it so easy for some to always say assault against women, it must be the womans fault . For decades, victims of rape are always questioned, viewed with suspicion, frequently questioned and viewed with suspicion. Even questioned that perhaps somehow she brought the tragedy on herself. Why was she there . How was she dressed . Did she want it . Ive investigated cases of rape and Sexual Assault and incest. How can we sit here today . Are we serious . And say regardless of the physical, emotional and psychological trauma of women and girls who survive these vicious attacks, that does not matter . That the only thing that matters is denying them their individual Constitutional Rights. Are we really serious . The only thing that matters is treating them, with all of the work that has been done in this country, by people who pave the way, the efforts to continue to treat women and girls like property and like second class citizens. To say that you have to go to your member of congress, your governor, or your senator and ask for permission. Come on, america. You know, Shirley Chisholm said, the sexual psychological type in the females begins when the doctor says, its a girl. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have the audacity to say freedom is what we are discussing here. Well, youre right, thats exactly what were discussing. Your individual freedoms. Who do we think we are to tell people how to live their lives . To every family raising daughters, to my four granddaughters, we all have reason, regardless of your political, come on america, regardless of your political standing, we all have reason to be very concerned. Whats next . We ought to be asking ourselves, okay, whats next . If you think it stops here, where there is already been an indication that it does not stop here with the call, the bold call to look at griswold and lawrence, even marrying the person that you love. I thought that was an american tradition, but i guess not in the minds of some. Professor murray, i just want you to, if you would reiterate on, not just the issue of roe, because thats pretty important to me, i would think to every man and woman, it should be raising a girl, a daughter, would you just go into why should we all be concerned about other constitutional individual rights, rights to privacy being trampled upon . Certainly, thank you representative. I think we should all be concerned about the prospect of fundamental rights being overruled and returned to the states for democratic deliberation. To ask the states to decide our most essential freedoms this essentially to make all of us supplements to the government. That cannot be with the framers of the constitution imagined. These were gentlemen who were concerned about the prospect of government overreach into individual lives. These were people who wrote the third amendment, which protects against the quartering of soldiers in your home. I cannot imagine that the framers of countenance along the government to make the most intimate decisions for individuals rather than allowing individuals to make those decisions for themselves. Thats exactly what this decision and its progeny will do. Thank you so much, mister chair, i yield back. Gentlelady yields back. Whats the most likely circumstance when a samesex couple would benefit from Abortion Access . Unfortunately, we have women, who experienced Sexual Assault. In fact, lesbian and bisexual women are more likely to experience Sexual Assault than heterosexual women. Their pregnancies are often involuntary. And so, these are individuals who would need access to abortion care. Will shelve bisexual women for a moment, my question is about the same sex couples. Whats more likely, a lesbian woman having an unwanted pregnancy as the consequence of a Sexual Assault or a gay couple adopting in america . These are both laudable goals. I didnt ask, i know they are, which is more likely . I think thats impossible to know. We have tens of thousands of samesex couples that are raising families and raising children as a consequence of adoption, tens of thousands. We know that as a consequence of census data. Is there any data youre able to reference that they would be more likely for lesbian woman to have an unwanted pregnancy as a consequence of rape then the formation of a family through samesex couples adopting . It may not be more likely, but its an important interest. Is it less likely . Im not asking about the importance of the interest, im limited on. Fayetteville would concede that it is certainly more likely in america to have samesex couples adopting the need to lesbians having unwanted pregnancies as a consequence of Sexual Assault, right . There may also be a misunderstanding about how samesex couples formed families. I also think its important to note that many what sexual women are in fact in relationships with other women. Maybe a misunderstanding. If a woman is with men and women, they are bisexual, right . That is not true, sir. An individual who is retracted to people of both sexes, both men, male and female, is someone whos bisexual. They can be in long term monogamous relationships. I dont thats to be dismissive. Youre saying lesbian women are also capable of being into men . That is not what i said, i said bisexual. My questions about lesbians, samesex couples. I care about this issue deeply. With the support of the Human Rights Campaign, i sponsored the legislation to get rid of the statutory prohibition on gay adoption in florida. I felt like that was very bigoted. I believe families are defined by love, more than blood. I worry that if the lgbtq community, if the advocacy organizations for samesex couples somehow reorient to be a pro abortion enterprise, that could actually result in fewer samesex couples having access to the family formation that gives them fulfilled lives. Are you concerned about that . France but i would be concerned about is forcing women to carry a pregnancy simply to satisfy another couple desire to have a child. There are many methods of family formation. Men many samesex couples use fertility treatments, assisted reproductive technologies, in addition to adoption. And in fact, lgbtq people are more likely to adopt children who are most in need. Three times more likely, yeah, i have noted that. Actually, same sex couples are three times more likely than opposite sex couples to adopt in america. Thats why its astonishing to me that people who would purport to advocate for gay americans say, we need abortion on demand. Thats the very people who are engaging in these adoptions. Maybe its really not about the benefit of gay couples, maybe its about the money. I mean, you know, because, miss foster, you made reference to how much money is behind the pro abortion effort in america. Do you worry that organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, the traditionally theyve stood up for the interests and families of gay couples, samesex couples, might be coopted by the coercive and dangerous money that is being used for abortion at all cost . Plan parent receives half a billion taxpayer dollars every single year. I think that a lot of that, maybe all of it should go towards actually planning parenthood. Yeah, adoption is a beautiful thing, it really is a beautiful thing. This desire to have these reflexive snap portions to stand in the way of that. Another element of your testimony, miss warbelow, you said states were likely to redouble their efforts against Marriage Equality is the consequence of the Dobbs Decision. There isnt a single state in america where theres been a single legislative committee that is held a single vote on a single bill to attack Marriage Equality following dobbs, has there . Im sorry sir, dobbs just happened, most legislatures are not in session. However, thats never happened. The time of the gentleman has expired, mr. Jeffries. I think the chair for convening this hearing, and witnesses for their presence. We are in the midst of an extreme right wing assault by illegitimate Supreme Court majority on womens rights, reproductive rights, marital rights, Family Planning rights, civil rights, Voting Rights, labor rights, and the right to liberty and justice for all. An assault by an illegitimate Supreme Court majority and a right Wing Movement here in this country determined to gems values down the throats of the American People. Strip away liberty. Its interesting to me that, miss foster, i think you made the statement earlier that the people who support abortion care are extreme, is that correct . Anyone who would support abortion up to the babys birthday as extreme. I think what youve heard people within pro Choice Movement articulate is that we support a womans freedom to make her own Reproductive Health care decisions. Thats not extreme. Thats mainstream. Its mainstream if you support the fact that this decision, reproductive decisions, should be between a woman and her doctor. We dont need ted cruz or anyone else involved in making that decision. That is extreme. What you want to bring about. Its extreme to criminalize abortion care france rule out america, thats extreme. Whats extreme is imposing government mandated pregnancies. Even, apparently, in some states in the case of a ten Year Old Girl being raped. That is extreme. Thats extreme. It is extreme to an lease bounty hunters on the women and children of america. That is extreme. Thats not prolife. Whats interesting is by, the Pro Life Movement often, socalled movement, often says that they support the american families. So, we support children. At the same time, these individuals vote against a Child Tax Credit that reduces Child Poverty by more than 40 in america. Thats not pro family, that is antichild. Its antichild when you actually vote against a legislative effort to deal with the infant Baby Formula Shortage in america. That is not pro family, that is antichild. Its antichild one republican governor after republican governor in this country refused to expand access to medicaid which supports women and children. So, spare us the lectures and the phony rhetoric. About being pro family. When, in instance after instance after instance you behave in an extreme way, that is antichild. Its anti france family. Now, professor murray, you are familiar with the fact that several Supreme Court justices during the Senate Testimony seemed to strongly suggest that they viewed roe v. Wade as settled law, is that right . Thats correct, representative jeffries. And several of those individuals who testified that roe v. Wade was settled law, suggesting they werent going to check it, for a variety of reasons, stare decisis, the principle of reliance interests, which is a big part of Supreme Court jurisprudence, and then turned around the first chance they got and stripped away a womans freedom to make her own Health Care Decisions, is that true . That is correct. And now the same justices, some of them, are suggesting, we dont have to worry about stripping away the freedom of americans to make their own decisions as to who they want to marry, or how they should plan a family, is that right . That is also correct. And is there any reason to believe that this illegitimate Supreme Court majority, with members who clearly misrepresented their views before the United States senate during sworn testimony, should now be believe that they are not going after the substantive Due Process Rights that are the subject of this hearing . This time of the gentlemans expired, mr. Jordan. Thank you, mister chairman. Miss foster, is it extreme, and an effort to intimidate the court when leftwing groups pay people who tell them where a supreme justice is having dinner with his family . Is that extreme . Yes. Is it extreme when the court, for the first time in history, someone in the court leaks a draft opinion . Is that extreme and an effort to intimidate the court . Yes. Is it extreme when an effort to intimidate the court in the speaker of the house holds up a bill for four weeks designed to protect, giving protection to a Supreme Court justices family who have had their kids school put online, is that extreme . Yes. Is it extreme, is it extreme when the Justice Department, key agency in the executive branch fails to prosecute protesters, ignoring a statute that is directly on point when theyre protesting it Supreme Court justices home than effort to intimidate them an influence a decision, a case, pending from the court, is that an extreme effort to intimidate the court . Yes. How about the 50, 50 incidents of, in ten weeks, of Crisis Pregnancy Centers and churches being attacked by leftwing activists, is that extreme and an effort to intimidate prolife americans around the world . Yes. Give us a lecture on extreme, you have to be kidding me. Let me ask you this, let me ask you this. We noticed today that when you came in, you had a security detail with you. Is that true . Yes, thats correct. This is the second time youve testified in front of our committee . It is. You testified a few weeks ago. What date, can you, i dont the, date was may, three weeks ago, four weeks ago . Something like that. Yeah. Post leak. Closely, i think was, may middle of may. Did you have security detail then . I did not. I did not have personal security detail the time. Is there a reason you have it now . There is. I have had to employ both personal and Office Security because of the threats that i and my colleagues have received, similar to the threats that have been received and, in fact, carried out all across the country with those 50 attacks. Did you receive those threats after you testified . Yes. Thats when they started . You testified as a republican witness, prolife witness in from this committee, then you start again for, its as a result you not to have a security detail. Is that right . That is correct. So its not just the prolife clinics and churches, its people that have the willingness to come forward and testify in a hearing in front of the United States congress. We all know, the left always talks about the threats, we all get these threats, its terrible, i wish no one, i dont anyone to have these things, doesnt matter what side of the political side youre on, all i know is that in ten weeks weve had 50 happen at pro life Pregnancy Centers and churches. Miss warbelow, do you agree with the leaking of the dobbs opinion . I do not. But i do want to clarify, that its not the first time that a Supreme Court opinion has been leaked. And we dont know who leaked it or for what purpose. I dont pretend to know who leaked it, im just asking if you agree with the summit on the left seem to agree with that. Miss foster, this concerted effort by the left to engage in an effort to intimidate the court, i think is dangerous. Particularly when you have the legislative branch of government as evidence by actions taken by Speaker Pelosi in holding up that legislation, and the lack of efforts to enforce the stature section 15 07 when you have two branches of government looking to be a part of the less effort to intimidate a separate and equal branch of government, i find thats very troubling. And as someone who understands the constitution, give me your thoughts. I certainly agree it is troubling. The legislation that would protect Supreme Court justices should never be held up. No one should be subjected to violence. Whether in their home, at their church, at the ministry, or in the womb. Yeah, well said, well said. And the idea that we had an assassination attempt on a sitting justice, in america, as my colleague mr. Johnson said, the freest and greatest country ever, is just so wrong. But it is driven by, i think, the statements made by senator schumer on the steps of the capital when he talked about unleashing the whirlwind. We have certainly see that play out in the last ten weeks here in our great country. And that is unfortunate. And i hope it changes. And with that, mister chairman, i will yield. Gentleman yields back, mr. Lieu . Thank, you chairman adler. Youre going to hear a lot of words from my republican colleagues today on this committee. And all i have to do is give you one example that is devastating to their statements. And that is this, a ten Year Old Girl got raped in ohio and got pregnant. She could not get an abortion because none of the exceptions in ohio law would have authorized it. And with did monica republicans do . They smeared her. They said she was lying. In fact, at least one republican in this committee publicly tweeted that she lied. And then quietly deleted that tweet. But guess what . Her perpetrator was arrested. I call on any maga republican who smear this little girl to publicly apologize. The story gets worse than that, because this little girl had to go to indiana to get an abortion, or abortion care. And guess what milder republicans are doing now . They are going after the doctor. Thats right, the doctor who helped this little girl. Because the truth is, modern and farright republicans want government mandated pregnancy for everyone, including ten year old rape victims. That is extreme. Lets go to the Supreme Court radical Dobbs Decision. And when you read it, it is very clear that Supreme Court justices lied in order to get confirmed. You cannot square with the majority said in dobbs, with the statements by Justice Gorsuch and kavanaugh. Lets look at with this opinion said. One of the reasons that the overturn roe v. Wade is they said the constitution makes no reference to abortion. So professor mary. Let me ask you this question. But does the constitution make any reference to break control pills . Under the Supreme Courts opinions. It could be a politician power to decide who gets Birth Control bills . That is correct. Does the constitution make reference to condoms . No. Under the Supreme Courts opinions these justices could give politicians the power to ban condoms, isnt that right . It is possible, yes. Legal director Sarah Warbelow, a question for you, does the constitution make reference to game eric . My apologies. Under this Supreme Courts decision they could give politicians the right to ban gay marriage, is that right . Certainly, Justice Thomas invited those challenges. Hes welcoming the opportunity to revisit those questions by the court. Thank you. Does the constitution make any reference to inter racial marriage . It does not. Under this Supreme Courts radical decision, it could give politicians the right to decide whether or not to ban interracial marriage . Thats the invitation that has been made. You know what the constitution makes reference to . A well regulated militia. I hope the Supreme Court looks at that phrase entered here is to it. But thats another matter. Lets return to this issue. Under the Dobbs Decision, the Supreme Court justices has said, roe was egregiously wrong from the start. That means justices gorsuch and kavanaugh knew that during the confirmation hearings. Roe v. Wade was decided 50 years ago. Will the gentleman yield to what the justice has said . If any of them, if any of them say roe v. Wade was egregiously wrong from the start, no they didnt. They said the office. You dont you couldve done what Justice Thomas did, not talk about it. They couldve said, i wont talk about roe v. Wade, i wont answer your question. But thats not what Justice Kavanaugh did. He went above and beyond to intentionally miss lead American People. He want to talk about casey. Do you know what he said . Casey has precedent on top of president. He was trying to give assurances to u. S. Senators and the public that he wont overturn roe v. Wade. Same with Justice Gorsuch. They didnt have to do that . They couldve done one other justices did. They couldve given themselves wiggle room. The silent, say im not answering the question. But they didnt, they lied. They specifically lied to the American People and the u. S. At. And thats why alexandria cortez and i have written a letter to find out whether Justice Gorsuch and kavanaugh lied to the American People. Mister chairman, those words should be struck. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. , ken buck. Can a member of this committee accuse a Supreme Court justice of lying under earth without evidence . Thats acceptable under the rules. The rules on personalities which apply to other members of the house do not apply to anyone outside the house. How unfortunate for them. I have unanimous consent to enter into the record the exact quotations of what the justices said. Thank you mister chairman. In the Early Morning of june 26 of this year, the life choice senator of my district was attacked and a fire started. On the outside wall, be arsonist spraypainted, if abortions arent safe neither are you. According to the website, life choices is a cry centered Ministry Offering services relating to pregnancy and sexual health, Abortion Pills and support, for guilt, shame, anxiety and depression. The radical left today is more violent than ever. With more than 50 attacks on pro life pregnancies centers and churches since may. Rather than putting a stop to this, the Biden Administration and its department of justice refused to condemn it and are suggesting it is abortionists that are under attack and in need of protection. This is far from the first time the left has used violence in its push to incite progressive revolution in america. From the assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh, two growing attack on black lives matter and antifa, and the riots in arsonism in 2020, the left has chosen violence with elected democrats and pundits all too happy to run for cover for the extremists in their own ranks. As james revenge, a group that firebombed Pregnancy Centers in new york, its open season on prolife institutions. Other groups put bounties on conservative Supreme Court justices. Meanwhile, doj targets conservatives continually. Including nine prolife activists for protesting in front of an Abortion Clinic, something normally treated as trespassed, but its treated as a serious felony for protesters. My friends across the aisle seem to bend reality to their own winds, if they only repeat the same talking points long enough. The rule of law and prolife americans constitution rights to freedom of speech and religion are under attack. Americans deserve better, the progressive driving this violence and the politicians and media taking it on threaten all of us. In 2020, riders caused more than a billion dollars of damage, 20 people lost their lives. So far weve been lucky. If this keeps up, someone will lose their life, god forbid when that happens the democrats will run for cover and will have no one to blame but themselves. I served on the Northern Colorado genesis project board, a Nonprofit Agency providing care, counseling, financial support, housing for pregnant women how many women and children are served every year by pregnancy resources and Crisis Centers in this country . Many millions. What kind of care to they receive . All kinds of care, material support, resources, training, housing, if needed, diapers, clothes, formula, you name it. If the woman is a need, 76 of women say they would choose to parent if the circumstances were different. So this hearing should be about making those circumstances different, helping them improve their circumstances, finding a fulfilling life. An in that same statistic it would include adoption, the ability for a woman to make a choice about having a baby and giving that baby to a family that can. Actually, it doesnt. That would be above and beyond the 76 . So some of these are religious institutions, and some are not, is that true . That is true, yes. The secular institutions, do they receive taxpayer funding for their services . The vast majority of Pregnancy Centers are entirely volunteer, theyre funded by donations. How does the violence that we have seen recently in this country impact the services to women who, some of the may choose to have an abortion, but there are at least going to ask the question and try to gain information to make an informed decision. How does the violence impact the women and the Services Provided to those women . At least they find out what resources are available for them. Actually, a couple of days ago i was privileged to visit one of those pregnancies centers in d. C. There was tragically there was some vandalism, they were sharing they had to hire security, they were spending donor funds on security instead of just being able to give all that money to the women who really need the care and support. How does the Biden Administrations lack of support impact them . They need funding. They need more ability to get to those women. Time of the gentleman has expired. Thank you, mister chairman. I find it stunning that we are being lectured on what violence is and extreme extremism is. Extremism my colleagues, some of hume have fueled that violence by not condemning the january six insurrection, by defending and even, according to the january Six Committee hearings, potentially even being involved in that insurrection, that violent coup to overturn the democracy. Let me go to the matter at hand, which is the horrendous of human rights that has caused people in nine states across the country to lose access to abortion. And with another 11 states that have restricted access or are expected to buy the outrageous overturning of roe v. Wade by this radical, extremist republicancontrolled Supreme Court. Justice thomas laid out a blueprint to take away more rights from the American People so that this threat to our rights is no longer hypothetical. Now, im a woman of color who has had an abortion, who is in a loving, interracial marriage. Ive had an amazing trans daughter. This is a direct threat to me, my loved ones and, most importantly, to millions of people across the country who face one or more of these many threats that have been unveiled by the Dobbs Decision and everything that follows. These rights could begin to fall as soon as this october. Which is why i introduce the protecting access to contraception act, and worked with democratic colleagues to protect other rights that are in danger by the Supreme Court decision. Americans constitutional right to privacy was examined in the 1965 case of griswold to connecticut. Thats the president upon which abortion and many lgbtq rights have been based. The conservative opinion that overturned roe has now suggested that somehow there were problems in the legal reasoning of that precedent. Miss Sarah Warbelow, what happens when the Supreme Court, conservative Supreme Court suddenly bases its jurisprudence on supposed holes of president s that have been long established . It very munched encourages stage legislatures to pass laws to undermine and undo these precedents. Its not conjecture, this is happened. We have seen states attempt to eliminate marriage for all couples as a right within their state. Weve seen legislature tried to reaffirm their bans on same sex couples marrying. And, in the wake of the Dobbs Decision, we saw a state in the 11th circuit challenge the centuries old right to put parental autonomy. These are not conjecture, the real examples that are happening in will continue to happen. Thank you, professor, murray antiabortion groups support revoking the right to in vitro fertilization and contraceptive measures like iuds. To make sure that American People are aware of this radical republican agenda, can you expand on how the conservative right is trying to take away the right to contraception another reproductive care . Its not a question for me . Yes. The real question after dobbs is what counts as an abortion . The Prolife Movement has four years sought to characterize certain forms of long acting contraceptives as abortion, plan b, for example, inter uterine devices, increasingly common around the United States, all of these have been classed as abortions. The Supreme Court has blessed them as Justice Alitos opinion from 2014. The real question is, what is an abortion . Theyve said these forms of contraceptions are in fact abortions. Thank you, professor mary, let me say that the inaction of the senate, because of the jim crow filibuster has left a giant vacuum where an extremist radical republican Supreme Court is set not only to overturn the president of 50 years for women and pregnant women across the country to have control over our lives, to keep people out of our bedrooms and our decisions. Now we are set to see a whole set of new rights taken away from americans. That cannot proceed, we must make sure the time of the gentlelady has expired. Thank you, mister chairman. The democrats have a radical view of abortion. Former virginia governor, talking about third trimester abortions said, i cant tell you how exactly what would happen if it would be kept comfortable, if it will be resuscitated, thats with the mother and family desired. Their discussion would ensue between physicians and the mother. Thats pretty extreme. Yesterday in the oversight committee, a witness was asked about infanticide. The witness said, health care is a right. Thats pretty radical the u. S. Is radical on abortion, led by the democrats. Within the top 4 of most permissive abortion policies in the world. Same as china, china has no restrictions. North korea has no restrictions. Vietnam has no restrictions. But, what about the eu . We keep hearing about that you, maybe we should follow their model. Lets go over some of those countries. France, only up to 14 weeks, germany, 12 weeks, greece, 12, hungry, 12, italy, 12, lafayette, lithuania, luxembourg 12 weeks. There is no abortion permissible in multi. Spain, sweden up to 18 weeks. The u. S. Is pretty dog gone an outlier in the world thanks to leftist policies of the democratic party. So, the democrats have a real extreme radical view of abortion. They use it and enforce it with fear. Heres one, New York Times opeds tell the democrats to embrace politics of fear. When it comes to abortion rights, democrats need to lean into the politics of fear. The party needs to scare voters and show that they too are scared. Theyre scared of the voters themselves. Thats what democrats are writing. Elizabeth warren said shut down all pregnancies centers. We need to shut them down in massachusetts, and we need to shut them down all around the country. I know folks have talked about, Ranking Member talked about 50, i get one of these every day. 57, 57 Crisis Pregnancy Centers that have been attacked. That doesnt even include the recent Bethesda Church attacked last weekend. According to my close friend who lives in portland, telling me about eight churches in the last few weeks that have been attacked. That doesnt include that. Thats the politics of fear. How about the reported shutdown d. C. , offering 250 just to track insight, harass justices kavanaugh, gorsuch, and john roberts how this one . Yesterday one of our own colleagues who sits on this committee asked, quote, im worried about this. It was the founder of the Republican Party, president lincoln, i was divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot ensure have slave enough free. Can we enter half free choice states and a half will that work for america . I dont know. He was the likening the abortion issue to slavery. Was he likening it to creating an insurrection in the country . I dont know, thats wild miss foster, when i look at it i see the radical, radical position of democrats on abortion. Tomorrow, the house votes will s Health Production act of 2022. Supporters claim it will simply codify roe, thats not true. Can you explain what this bill does . That bill would strip away every protection for children in the womb. It was stripping away protection for mothers. And also for Health Care Providers, it would strip away conscious protections, informed consent, it would strip away gestational age limitations allowing for abortions up to the babys birthday. It would take away everything weve built for the 49 years since roe. We would then become the most radical abortion nation in the world. More radical than china, north korea, or vietnam, which have no limitations. Is that fair to say . It is fair, yes. Democrats are radical and extreme on abortion. This bill was just another attempt by democrats to expand abortion, override state laws to protect the onboarded. Life is the most precious thing were given, especially the unborn deserve that right. The time of the gentlemans expired. Thank you, mister chairman. I do want to challenge one misleading talking points that the colleagues across the aisle have pushed today. That the existence of Crisis Care Centers for pregnancies are evidence that the Antiabortion Movement cares about mothers and families. Thats just not true. In fact, these Crisis Pregnancy Centers are a well funded arm of the Antiabortion Movement, that advances the agenda by using deceptive, and coercive tactics and disinformation to target low income people facing unintended pregnancies to prevent them from accessing abortion and contraception. Ten misleadinglythese crisis prs which actually outnumber Abortion Clinics often me mislead themselves as providing medical services, when theyre not license to do so. Therefore theyre not bound by privacy laws that govern medical providers. These antiabortion facilities collect personal information and share with antiabortion organizations. These centers face limited public accountability despite the fact that they are increasingly siphoning off public funds from the welfare programs which are supposed to serve low income women and families. Mister chairman, i seek consent unanimously to introduce a study by an alliance of state at advocates for gender equity entitled, designed to in nine states, including pennsylvania. Thank you. Returning to the subject at hand, were hearing in the wake of the unpopular Supreme Court Dobbs Decision to overturn roe versus wade, with it 50 years of settled law regarding the fundamental privacy right to women to make their own decisions regarding health care. I dont think we can underestimate the impact the Dobbs Decision will have on the health and welfare of women and their families in this country. And upon the Economic Health and will fare of the country as a whole, by giving the green light to states to ban abortion, as many have rushed to do in the wake of this decision. And the suggestion that the decision has now been left to the peoples fundamentally disingenuous given the fact of the Senate Blocks any such legislation with the filibuster. The Dobbs Decision goes against the values of a Strong Majority of american that the women should have the freedom to decide if they should bear children and how many. Politicians should not be in the business of mandating that women cheney unintended and dangerous pregnancies to term. The vast majority of americans understand that we dont need or want politicians invading doctors offices. And that womens privacy, invading doctors offices or a womans privacy to impose a extremist minority. The reality is these incisions are complicated, theyre complicated by the mental and Financial Health of a family. Complicated by the physical health of the women and the fetus. Theyre complicated by whether or not pregnancy was the result of the abuse or criminal activities. The complicated by the fact that our society for decades has prioritized the wellbeing of unborn fetuses over that of children and families and even the health of pregnant women. Unfortunately, the ramifications of this extremist decision do not end there. In overturning roe v. Wade the court has called into question a host of other privacy rights that americans rely on for more than half a century, including the right to obtain contraception, interracial and samesex marriage, as well. Professor murray, many constituents have questions about the ramifications of this decisions, with respect to these privacy rights beyond a womans freedom to make her own Reproductive Health care decision. Can you explain in plain english why those opinions raise alarms about other fundamental rights of Self Determination . Happily, those opinions all proceed from the same reality. This grant of liberty comes from this reconstruction era, Reconstruction Amendments and a commitment to antislavery, including providing formerly enslaved with rights of bodily autonomy, control over and the ability to control the family lives. When roe was overturned and the right to privacy was casually dismissed by the conservative super majority, it unsettled all these precedents. The majoritys efforts to convene this decision to just abortion is frankly gaslighting. There is no way to confine that logic to just abortion. If roe is egregiously wrong because it is not rooted in the dust traditions of the country, and its not explicit in the text of the constitution, all of these other rights are equally in peril. All of them proceed from the same logic and they are all on the same path as roe is. Thank, you i yield back. Gentlelady yields back. Mr. Does jobs ban abortions . It does not. Does it limit abortions . It does not. Does it say anything about abortions beyond that i cant find it right in the constitution . It does not. If the state chose to legalize unrestricted abortions on demand, is there anything in jobs that would prevent it from doing so . Clearly not, weve seen states doing that. I think the question for both sides considering is whether congress has the authority to adopt a federal law concerning abortion, either restricting, banning it or allowing it. Is there anything in the Dobbs Decision that would prevent congress from doing so . No. More difficult question that im struggling with, whether congress has a Constitutional Authority to ban or restrict or allow abortion or is that a matter relieved to the states and elected representatives, whats your opinion . At americans united for life we take both perspective on that. Were looking for our elected representatives to lead and to take a strong position protecting life. We expect our judges to follow the constitution and protect all life. Congress is given enumerated powers, i dont find abortion one way or another unenumerated power, is that not there for the states to decide . Its certainly not an enumerated power. The majority of americans tell pollsters that based roe v. Wade. At the same time they also tell those pollsters that abortions should be banned after 15 weeks. Does roe allow restrictions on abortions after 15 weeks . The current regime in our country, prior to dobbs, was that in fact it was almost unrestricted abortion on demand. So roe would prevent restrictions on abortions after 15 weeks . It had, yes. Okay, how will dobbs . Does the Dobbs Decision allow such restrictions . The Dobbs Decision says that you can in fact you can protect women and filled children after 15 or before 15 weeks. A substantial majority of americans, even though they say they oppose roe, actually support. Super majority, yes. I think laws have to be based on a broad consensus, otherwise theyre ignored or they have to become a president. I think the is a clear consensus that if somebody is lying unconscious in a hospital bed and they have a heartbeat and a brain wave, there are human being, youre not allowed to kill them. Within that same principle apply to the beginning of life, just logically . You would think so. Some of your colleagues seem to disagree. Thats with the mississippi law says . Yes. As i understand it, the concept of due process rests with the fifth and 14th amendment rights to not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. That seems pretty clear, he cannot be executed or jailed or fined without your day in court. Due process, imagines a whole range of other rights that are not enshrined explicitly in constitutional statutory law, rather are established by judicial degree. Do i understand that . You do. I happen to believe those rights that exist in nature. These are rights that are not created by government, we create governments to protect these preexisting rates. To do so we still have to define them. We do that through our constitution and through our legislatures. We just heard from a democrat witness who defined such rights, s should not be left to the elected representatives of the people. Whats the alternative . Judges to define these rights . Somebody has to define. Apparently so, yes. Which do you think is a safer repository of these rights, people or appointed judges . I believe its the people. Its the people who have the rights and the people we elect our representatives to defend them. Shouldnt respect for democracy leave these issues for the people through the elected representatives . Isnt that what Justice Thomas is saying . Thats exactly what he saying. The left tells us any restriction on Abortion Forces a woman to carry a baby against their will. How do you respond to this . I believe, as i said a moment ago, most women would choose to carry if we could approve their circumstances. Thats exactly what his body should be doing. Thank you very much. I yield back. Chairman yields back. Miss foster, would a ten year old choose to carry, do you think . A ten year old case, first of all the ohio the question is, would a ten year old choose to carry a baby . In the ohio case im asking you, would a ten year old choose to carry a bag . I cannot. Do you think a ten year old should choose to carry a baby . That would probably impact her life, i believe, therefore would fall under any exception, it would not be an abortion. It would not be an abortion, if a ten year old with her parents made the decision not to have a baby that was the result of a rape . If a ten year old became pregnant as a result of rape and it was threatening her life, then thats not an abortion. So, it would not fall under any abortion restriction in our nation. Miss Sarah Warbelow, are you familiar with this information . Did you hear any disinformation . I heard significant disinformation. Tell me about it. An abortion is a procedure, a medical procedure. That individuals undergo for a wide range of circumstances, including because they have been sexually assaulted, raped in the case of the tenyearold. It doesnt matter whether or not theres a statutory exemption, theres still a medical procedure understood to be an abortion. Beyond that i think its important to note that there is no exception. For the life or health of the mother in the ohio law. Thats why the tenyearold cross state lines to receive an abortion. Mister chairman, thank you miss Sarah Warbelow, yesterday jim jordan sent a tweet that id like to put in the record with unanimous consent. I will read that in a moment. Read it. Its a Washington Examiner posting that ohio ag said his office is not found evidence of a ten year old rape victim, according to reports sided by joe biden, was six weeks pregnant and traveled to receive an abortion. Mr. Jordans statement was another lie, is anyone surprised . Id also like to put into the record todays wall street journal from the editorial board. That corrected the record on the rape case. The journal corrected its own misstatement today before. That objection. Yesterday, miss Sarah Warbelow speaking of disinformation, jim jordan called ten year old rape victim a liar. A ten year old rape victim was called a liar by the Ranking Member of this committee. I know he did that because he hates the president. Its clear, every day from his statements and from maga republicans that they dont like joe biden. Thats fine, what is worse is that the reason he did it is because he doesnt like what that rape victim represents. Which is that this law, from the Supreme Court and the laws that follow, in states like ohio and texas, and georgia and other states will bring Us Government mandated pregnancys for tenyearolds, fourth graders, little girls. And to deflect from that they choose to bully and beat up transgender individuals who represent fewer than 1 of americans. They tried to deflect that because they dont want anyone in america to realize that they dont just watch and want to wage war on women theyre expanding it to a war on little girls. So, miss Sarah Warbelow, lets go back to where we start, can a little girl, should a little girl make the decision to have a forced government pregnancy. Should she be put in the opposition. She should have the opportunity in consultation with their parents and the medical providers to make the decision that is in her best interest. And under this current law does she have the opportunity to make that decision . She does not under ohio law. Mister chairman, again its not about someones ability to make a Kitchen Table decision with their family. Its about maga republicans who want to control not just women but little rock. And to put us into an era of government mandated pregnancys without the opportunity to make that important decision that will affect them for the rest of their life, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Thank you mister chairman. The majority starts the hearing with the lie that there is a constitutional right to killing unborn children. Its never been right, and know where our founding documents or the constitution does the constitutional right exist to murder unborn child. The opposite is president , mr. Mcclintock touched on it. In the constitution theres a right for any person to not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. In two different amendments. Certainly, unborn children are a person, im not sure what else it would be. Im tested to see if the other sides going to ignore signs that the child in the womb is not a person. Therefore, that person shall not be deprived of life pursuant to our constitution, and certainly not the opposite where they can be murdered. Theres been a lot of talk today about freedom. And there is no freedom to murder an innocent life, a person that was duly recognized under our constitution. The majority of the Supreme Court made this clear in stating, i quote, on page 25, its inescapable conclusion is that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nations history and traditions. On the contrary, an unbroken tradition prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the commonwealth until 1973. On page 69 of the opinion they hold, we therefore hold that the constitution does not confer right to abortion. Roe and casey must be overruled, the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and elected representatives. Since roe v. Wade, over 63 Million People have been slaughtered in an incorrectly decided decision. The issue was to write the wrong and give back the right to life guaranteed every person in our constitution. We should be thankful today for the Supreme Courts decision and dobbs and everyone that made it possible, and that includes mrs. Foster. I want to include the thanks for the decision that worked into dobbs, and thank you for your courage for being here. I want to thank you, its tough up here but know that hundreds of millions of americans down behind you. Were praying for you. Theres a large amount of support out there for you. I had a list of questions for you but a couple of questions ago mrs. Mary gay scanlon leveled a host of disinformation about Pregnancy Centers. Id like to give you the remaining time i have left for you to respond to any, that or i could ask you these questions i have for you, whichever direction you like to go. Theres a light lot at like to respond to. First, representative mary gay scanlon almost talked about planned parenthood when she talked about Pregnancy Centers. Deceptive, well funded, coserved that defines planned parenthood and big abortion. It seems to me that shes getting information from the same place that a previous representative did on her info about my organization, because we dont in fact take a stance on contraception. Rtherso that would be somethingi would certainly recommend looking further into. Further than that, preteen pregnancies are highrisk. And they fit the life exception. So that isnt actually an abortion because the primary intent is to save the girls life. An abortion is the intentional ending of a human life in the womb prior to birth and thats not what would be going on there. But i ask how do we know about how this little girl . Instead of revictimizing her in front of the nation, here in congress, on cspan, why are we talking about the real issue . Why are we talking about rape . Why are we talking about holding her rapist accountable . Instead, abortion and rape are both symptoms of the same violent ideology that says we can violate others to achieve our own goals and fulfill our own desires. I work alongside people who have experienced the most horrific sexual environs imaginable. They understand that transcending these ills starts by refusing to perpetuator justify further violence. Thats what this hearing should be about. We should talk about that, we should talk about helping women, giving them the resources that we need. We need to talk about how we can Work Together in a bipartisan way to help our nation and the people, all americans make sure we have equal rights, equal Human Dignity. Instead, were just casting stones and throwing spears and trying to intimidate the Supreme Court into regretting a decision that is completely constitutional and restores americas most fundamental human right to life. Thank you for being here today, i yield back. Gentleman yields back, miss garcia. Thank you mister chairman, thank you for bringing us together for this important and critical hearing. I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. Justice thomas has given the greenlight for the conservative controlled states in our nation to continue to crusade against liberties and freedoms of every individual that is not male, white, and straight. They started with women throwing us back to the dark ages, treating us as property and cattle, forcing us to give birth against her will. Treating us as subjects and handmaids of the government. Next it will go against gays, lesbians, transgender individuals, the Lgbt Community as well. In texas, Republican Attorney general has already expressed in no Uncertain Terms that he has the full intention of litigating in favor of returning lawrence v. Texas. This case started in my district. Back then, it was in 1988, the arrest of mr. Lawrence was in a resident of what is my district and it was about keeping the governments reach outside of peoples bedrooms and their intimate lives which it state. Its regrettable that our attorney general is already thinking about doing about. Republicans who claim to believe in small government, in their never ending hypocrisy are weaponizing the state to criminalize the most into pit aspects of our lives. What happens to be two consenting adults in their home is no ones business. Religion is not a basis for public policy, im a catholic but we must keep our rosaries for prayer and not to restrain liberties. I thank the witnesses for coming and i want to start with professor murray. Is it extreme that antiabortion activists have been responsible for at least 11 murders. 26 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 194 arsons, and thousands of incidents of criminal activities directed at Abortion Providers since 1977 . It is extreme, i find really interesting that the republicans in this hearing have emphasized the protests against the Supreme Court justices and individuals in a peaceful manner, when we have since 1977 along history of actual violence against those who provide abortions and those who seek abortion care. Id also note that in 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated a law that the people of massachusetts enacted through their legislature to provide a 30 foot buffer zone between Abortion Clinics and protests are so individuals could mentor those clinics to get a peaceful decision about their health care. The Supreme Court invalidate that subjecting those individuals to the protests and disagreements, in many cases intimidation of those who oppose abortion. Thats part of the hypocrisy. They dont want to buffer someone, Abortion Providers centers, but they want a buffer zone around their homes when theyre eating . Should we just put up a bubble boy and girls so they could go and be protected humble . The court emphasized that protesters at Abortion Clinics were exercising First Amendment rights in a peaceful manner. I dont condone violence in any way. But i agree with the court that those who wish to exercise First Amendment rights peacefully should be able to do. So i agree with you, i dont condone violence and i am a former judge and ive had death threats. But i just feel that ive always had law enforcement. Ive always had people who could protect you and people have right to protest, they have a right to be there, particularly if theyre in public sidewalks. Thank you for that. Do you think theres anything that would i keep hearing a notion of it needs to go back to the elected representatives. Last time i checked i was an elected representative. That is exactly right. Representative garcia. I want to correct representative mcclintock statement does not augur the prospect of a federal ban on abortion. Justice kavanaugh on page two and three of his opinion in dobbs makes clear that this simply returns this issue to the prospect of democratic deliberation in the states and congress. That, those are the words of this opinion. This will surely come to congress if there is a republican majority. Thank you for your that, mister chairman, i want to stay for the record. Introduce the National Abortion federation centers report dated may 19 2022. Listing all the violence against Abortion Providers since 1977. Without objection. Gentleladys time is expired. Mr. Tiffany. Thank you. Miss marlowe, did you have persons agreed to attend here today . I did not. But i do have thank you for that question. For that answer. Miss foster. We heard about targeting low income, targeting low income people. Could you give us just a brief tutorial on Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood in their history . Margaret sanger is one of the most noted you genesis in our nations history if not the worlds history. She believed in targeting minority populations. Believed in targeting populations with disabilities. All kinds of just backwards undemocratic thinking. She also founded planned parenthood which today does the lions share, performs lion share of all abortions in america. And isnt it true that nazi germany actually invited her ilk to their country preworld war ii . They did. What effect would, you talked earlier about the socalled Womens Health protection act of 2022 that failed in the United States senate. Could you comment on how the impact on state governments that the bill would have . It would even go beyond. Railroad straightaway productions in all 50 states. Even the states that had already moved to liberalize abortion law it stripped away protections in every single state. Protections like informed consent. Protections like, you name, it if it was on the books, it was gone. This Womens Health protection act which is incredibly deceptively named. They talk about disinformation. Not about health or protection. It has nothing to do with the good women that bill would strip away every protection thats been put on the books in american history. It was really the ability to see our own ultrasounds if we asked to see aaron ultrasounds that could be denied us again. It would serve away informed consent. Any kind of protection on later mobilization which of course as we know is far more dangerous for the woman. Much higher mortality rate. It was really protections on chemical abortion which is even more dangerous than a surgical abortion when it comes to hemorrhage and substance. You name it, its on the chopping block. Would it remove parental consent . Yes. Okay, so we heard some rhetoric earlier about protecting little girls. So in other words, me as parents. My wife and i as parents. In other words, if we had an underage daughter that would remove us from the picture, is that correct . It sure would. Yeah. Does a limit the health care information, does this bill Women Health Care information to be revital for pregnant women . The Womens Health protection act does. When were talking about lack of informed consent women dont even have the right to get the facts about the abortion the procedure that theyre about to undergo. Basically what you were saying earlier. So i want to thank the chairman yesterday for clarifying the democrat partys position in regard to the Hyde Amendment for those who are not familiar with the Hyde Amendment. Youre welcome. The Hyde Amendment protects taxpayer dollars from being used for abortions. In other words, you should pay for it. If you have a conscience, lets say for conscience regions you say that you do not want to pay for an abortion, that would all go away. And its terribly unfortunate. Because we saw Many Democrats over the previous decades that did have strong conscious provisions that believed in the Hyde Amendment and our chairman now has made a very clear that the democrat partys position is that you shall pay for abortions if theyre going to set the law here in our country. I just want to close with this and i want to address the young people that are here today. Thank you so much for joining us for this hearing. I want you to talk to you about the history of the Republican Party. We were formed in 1854. The original single issue party. And that was to end. Slavery in that was accomplished in our country. And we did it over the, we ended up fighting a war over it. We are now here to protect life once again. It is now the Republican Party, that stands for life in america. I yield back, mister chairman. Gentleman yields back. Miss thank you chairman. We have spent countless years listening to questions about womens personal freedoms, from individuals with extreme views. Questions from individuals in this body who have already expressed by their actions and the rhetoric that the will of the American People should just simply be ignored. And after all the years of attacks on roe v. Wade, after years of distant from disingenuous questions and deceitful politics. I believe that its time that those who have advocated for the overturning of a womans right to choose answer some questions of their own. Does a 12yearold girl, middle schooler, who attends after School Programs because your parents worked late, who is viciously raped on her walk home from school. Should she have access to an abortion . Or should she be forced to carry that fetus to term for nine months . To wake up every morning to bouts of morning sickness, to shake in fear every time she is touched. The growing bump in her belly remind her each day of the unimaginable trauma she has suffered. Memories she cannot escape in a feeling she may never feel clean or hole again. Does a mother who struggle to get pregnant, who is just gone in for prenatal checkup and has been told the heartbreaking truth that her child will be stillborn upon delivery. And that no matter what she does and no matter how hard she praise her desire for motherhood once again be denied. Should her doctors be allowed to treat her miscarriage . Or should she be forced to carry her fetus to term . To drop grapple with the pain, the anguish the devastation she feels being asked by passersby in public how far along she is. Or enduring comments on how beautiful she looks as an expecting mother. In how excited she must be for their arrival of her newborn child. Does a sophomore who plays varsity soccer, hopes to playing college monday, whos excited to go to prom in a few months in just had sex for the first time canceled understand why her shirts keep getting tighter. She finds herself with her head in the toilet one night vomiting see no reason at all. As her father comes a check on her, he startled her and she looks into his eyes which are filled with tears. They both recognize that she is pregnant. And that she no more than a mere child herself will be forced to give birth to one. Does she have the right to an abortion . Or will she be forced to fill the guilt and shame she believes she has caused her parents and her loved ones . For realizing the College Arena longer be an option for her or that her future, her dreams are deferred. In other words, id like to ask my republican colleagues do you support abortion in the first trimester . Do you support abortion in the case of rape or incest . Do you support abortion if it risks the life of the mother . Do you support abortion in the case of fetal abnormalities . Do you believe all abortion is murder . And if so, do you believe this carriage is manslaughter . Do you believe women should face criminal penalties for seeking an abortion . Do you think doctor should be put in jail for prefer iding one . Do you support a womans right to make her own Health Care Decisions . In the reason we will never hear a response to the simple questions is that they know the answers they give, americans will find extreme and disturbing. They know that forcing women to have children without their consent is not a position that the American People find palatable. They know that forcing women to carry a dead fetus to term will not win them the support that they desire. Because with this decision takes from us, women, is our freedom. The freedom to choose our own destinys. The freedom to pursue the happiness that we envision for ourselves. There are legislators across america telling women that for nine months, that they are mere subjects of the state. That their bodies belong to the whims of an almighty government. That deliberately our creator and down with us is no longer a self evident truth. That the autonomy and independence god has given us has been stripped away by mere men. There is no freedom for a woman unless she has freedom over hone body. Time of the gentlelady has expired. Mr. Bishop. Thank you mister chairman. Miss foster, is it, do laws against abortion prohibit removing aided fetus from a woman . Absolutely not. Thats my understanding as well. Once again one of the way. It continues to be repeated. By the other side. Professor murray, you concluded your testimony both your inversion and the oral form by saying that you quote call on this committee to protect these associated rights in a manner that is swift and absolute. That was your last word. Absolute. Of course, these associate writers speak about several but certainly the right to an abortion. Do you mean by that there should be no limits on it whatsoever . That it should be available until birth . What i meant in my written testimony, representative, if any thanks for the question. Fundamental rights should not be left to the democratic process. These are fundamental rights that each individual has and they should be protected as they were under the constitution. Do you mean that they are absolute. My colleagues, we are discussing the second at the other week. Reminded me off in that second, no constitutional right is absolute. A point that i readily concede. Do you can see that there can be limits on the right to abortion . It is not a concession to say that there is no fundamental right that is i teach that to my students every day in my constitutional law class. The Second Amendment rights are not they could be subject to government regulation or at least they could until quite recently. All fundamental rights are subject to some limitations. But i asked for this committee to respond in a manner that was swift and absolute. I meant in terms of their commitment to protecting the rights of every person in the United States to enjoy these fundamental freedoms and not have their most intimate decisions made by the government. Do you support the Womens Health protection act that is pending, sponsors effective of the day and i measure familiar with it. That would allow abortion until the moment of birth . Representative, i think thats a mischaracterization of the Womens Health protective act. I am supportive of any measure that this Chamber Takes to assure the rights of individuals to be free in this country and to enjoy the equality that is promised to us under the 14th amendment of the constitution. Im happy to elaborate if you like. Let me clear than, if you sort of mischaracterization. Let me just ask you a more directly. Do you favor the congress providing the abortion shall be protected until the moment of birth . I dont believe that abortion care allows for abortion until the moment of birth. Thats not how this works. Individuals have the right to select an abortion. And when individuals do choose a late term abortion. Its usually because something tragic has happened in a pregnancy that was very much wanted. My point that is the misquotations that you are using inflammatory language to essentially those who choose to have a late term abortion. Often because there are very few choices available to them because something tragic has happened in the course of a very much wanted pregnancy. Thats my point. Should the rights of the unborn child be weighed in the consideration of whether to allow allay term abortion . I would respectfully know that in this course decision in planned parenthood versus casey a 1992, the court rather than go back in the constitution. Im really just getting your advice because your were not telling that the constitution. Im interested in your advice to the committee about you concluded your you urge the committee to protect these rights. Im asking not so much for history about the Supreme Court has said but do you do you contend that the childs rights unborn child right should be weighed in considering whether to limit later abortion. As i was saying, in planned parenthood versus casey, the Court Allowed the states to regulate for potentialities of life, that was do you believe it should be so limited . It doesnt matter what i believe. It matters but how the constitution is interpreted. Miss Sarah Warbelow, the Human Rights Campaign supports the bill but i made reference to for providing for abortion up until birth, potentially . We support the bill. But i, like whats miss murray said, your statements are or misrepresentation. You said could not protect an abortion until the birth . That is not how the abortion works. Its really troubling and dangerous frozen. Only because he was saying as a practical matter thats not how abortions occur. Therefore the bill does allow by its terms it allows that, is that correct . It does not. Its a mischaracterization of how the bill operates. Time of the gentleman has expired. Thank you mister chair. Nearly 50 years ago the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right to an abortion in roe v. Wade. That ruling, anchored in our constitutions right to privacy, was part of a litany of cases forming the doctrine of due process, guaranteeing constitutional process for many freedoms we embrace and rely upon in the United States. Whether its a parents decision on how to raise their child, an adults decision to marry the person they love, or the decision to use contraception, these private intimate choices have long been left to the individual to make for themselves, not politicians. In the weeks since dobbs was published, i can tell you that the people of my district in arizona are angry. Theyre angry because the Supreme Courts decision to overturn roe reverses years of hard won progress and president. It threatens lives, careers, and families they built. And the plans theyve made for their future. Simply put, it turns back the clock. While Justice Alito distinguish the right to an abortion for mother freedoms recognized by the court in recent decades, like access to contraception, Marriage Equality, his distinguishing rationale was so weak that there is little hope that other personal liberties will hold up to its scrutiny. Make no mistake, the Dobbs Decision is a clear invitation to state legislatures to pass more hostile laws that without a doubt will result in litigation before the Supreme Court and result in further fundamental rights being stripped away. You dont have to be a close observer of the court to know this. Today, Supreme Court majority will not stop at overturning and right to an abortion. Now, the court feels empowered and emboldened to ignore and rewrite settled. From my are the case presentable to griswold protecting contraception, to protecting interracial message, to ignoring to protecting Marriage Equality, ascentury of decisives at is at stake. Its up to us, members of congress, duty bound to our voters to take immediate action to secure our fundamental liberties through that will require abolishing a filibuster, but protecting Constitutional Rights is more important than protecting our archaic rule of a sense. Our constitution, our country and the American People demanded. I have a question for mr. James obergefell, you are a legend, youve changed america for the better. Thank you for your courageous action and leadership. Do you trust Justice Alitos assurance that lights of lgbtq people will not be overturned, if so why not . He clearly is opposed to Marriage Equality based on his dissent in obergefell. Regardless of what he puts in writing in the Dobbs Decision, this decision opens the door to attack Marriage Equality. Justice thomas concurring opinion gives additional groundwork to do that. To be fair, several justices during their confirmation hearings were not completely truthful in my opinion and their responses to their opinion on president. That relates to roe v. Wade. That piece of writing in the decision does not give me comfort whatsoever, when one right is lost, all rights are at risk. Miss Sarah Warbelow, the same question. Justice alitos pronouncement, quote, nothing in this position to catch doubt on president that do not unquote. Does that offer you in reassurance that the Supreme Court authority will not roll back protections for lgbtq people . Its important to know that the majority of it is the consensus document. It does not reflect what month Justice Alito mightve written had chose to write this decision alone. He and Justice Thomas have repeatedly said that they believe the obergefell decision was wrong. Not only did they say it in the dissent of the opinion but they sent it subsequently, including in Subsequent Court filings. They very much would invite and would like to see that precedent overturned along with other president s including griswold and lawrence. Thank you, so much. The time of the gentleman has expired. I think the chairman. Weve got a couple of questions for professor mary in terms of i appreciate the stuffed elephant in the background. Professor mary, im looking at the backdrop as a dad im enjoying that one in the background. Id ask you a question. Who decides when life begins . Thank you for the question, representative roy, its nice to remind you that we overlapped at the university of virginia years ago. Im in my sons bedroom on vacation. The question of when life begins is essentially a personal question, not informed by the individual religious beliefs ive got a limited time, professor. Who, as a matter of law, who decides when life begins . And who decides when and how life is protected . The constitution does not speak to when life begins, just as it does not speak to many other things, including the right to abortions and executive privileges. Its a personal decision in our constitution. In our absence of the constitution, saying when life begins, who best to decide when to protect life . People or courts . Representative roy, as you know, the question of when life begins is a personal question formed by religious beliefs. Our constitution in the First Amendment says emphatically that the government has shown not endorsed any particular religion when we have life, professor, it makes decisions about protesting protecting life, which we do all the time. Its a threemonthold infants murder we protect that life. If a 50 year old is murdered we protect have laws to protect that life. We make decisions about when life begins. My simple question, as a matter of law, is when, who decides when we protect life . And whether or not that is a judge to decide that moment or whether it is elected lepers and it is elected by the people . Well, representative roy, as you say we have laws, the laws are written by representatives. We have fundamental rights. As you noted, these fundamental rights are not unfettered. But they do allow individuals to possess certain freedoms. For example, the Second Amendment, despite we have prohibitions on murder, allowed individuals to bear arms. Sometimes two effects that are a professor, let me ask you this. Do you think brown is settled law . Brown versus board of education . I do. Do you think plessy was not set a law, and brown righted it. I think plessy versus ferguson espoused a document separate but equal that was absolutely antithetical to the principles. The question is, do you agree when Justice Kagan said, there are two ways to amend the constitution, article five or through the judiciary, through the courts. Do you agree with that . That is typically how we have amended the constitution in the past. In other words, it can in fact be amended through judicial action as just as marshall said, do what you think is right and let the law catch up. When im trying to get at is, when were talking about judicial activism, were talking about the court creating law. The court made the decision. The whole question, is who gets to decide . And, i think thats whats fundamental. All ask you a question before i ran out of time. Do you think the decision, d. C. Versus heller it is settled law. I think the heller decision is one that was decided. Yes or no, is it settled . It is settled. But it seems to have been mcdonald the chicago incorporates the reminders of the Second Amendment. The question, Shelby County versus holder, set a law . Shelby council versus holder eliminates the preclearance formula. I know with the case does, professor, is it settled law . It is settled awe. Thank you, as citizens uniteds thats a lot . Citizens united provides the corporations have a First Amendment professor, i know youre a professor and you can recite whats in the case. Im asking if these are set a law . We are educating the public. Professor, my point is simple, the question is who gets to decide these fundamental questions . Time of the gentleman has expired. Miss dean. Thank you, mister chairman, i want to say to women and girls do not give up hope because of the actions of a radical, extremist Supreme Court. Its on all of us to be sure dobbs is not our future. A future where women and girls are reduced to second class citizenship. A future where my of daughters and granddaughters have fewer rates than i had. I wanted to talk to you, miss Sarah Warbelow and professor marie, about language. Language matters, i dont know if you are paying attention to the veiled and sometimes not so veiled language of incredible disrespect for women and girls that weve heard thrown around here and we hear thrown around. Representative gohmert, speaking of planned parenthood, said something, another young girl on Birth Control to better the odds that youll forget to take the pills social get pregnant and have an abortion. Representative gates talking about snap abortions. Obviously, someone whos never been pregnant, theres nothing snap about an abortion. The witness our expert has fabricated that if a woman had a procedure to save her life for a girl had a procedure thats no longer on abortion. Of course it is, its a medical procedure. Republicans think women are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves. Can you briefly, both commented on this and, not shockingly, this language is coming from white men of privilege and power. Can you speak to the language issue. Language always matters. How our nations elected officials speak about women, about lgbtq people, about people of color has real ramifications. We know that it increases feelings of depression and isolation, particularly among the youth. To be suggested that theyre less than fully human, less than fully want to. And so the rhetoric that comes from our elected roof is scholes has real implications. Id encourage everyone to be thoughtful on how they speak. Thank you for that, professor murray, can you say any observations of the language of disrespect toward women and girls. The entire dobbs opinion is about the language of disrespect to him in and girls. Planned parenthood versus this clear that these rights are essential. The court did not entertain the prospect of womens other than they found that it was inconsistent with this president. Thank you, very much. Mr. James obergefell, i hope it will be inperson next time, i thank you for being the face of courage and the face of change. The face of expanding rights in this country. Not the shrinking of them. Your description and your testimony of your marriage, your 20 years together, of your love and dreams, of your disagreements sounds a lot like my marriage. Your description of your care for your husband as he suffered and struggled with als down to his last day. As you say, if hasnt isnt a marriage i dont know what is. Reminding me of the power of marriage. I had the honor this summer to marry two of my friends in the same sex marriage. I use the words, and i wonder if you love these words as much as i. Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Margaret marshall in 2003 became the first state to recognize same sex marriage. Im abbreviating what she said so eloquently. I commend it to everyone, quote, marriages of vital social institution because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven and connection that express our common humanity. Civil manner civil Marriage Institution in the decision whether among the lives most momentous acts of self definition. Do you agree with that description of marriage . Samesex or other . And can you speak to your feelings when you read the Clarence Thomas clarion call when he says the court today to clients of the serves due process in cases like for that reason, in future cases we should consider all of this court substantive including how did you feel . Thank you, representative dean. When i read those words in thomass opinion, they angered me. They have sent me. Because here was justice on our nations highest court whose marriage exists because of a Supreme Court decision taking aim at our marriage to say he still believed we are less than. We are less worthy than our relationships, our families do not matter as time of the gentlelady has expired. Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, mister chair. I think one of the things were hearing today is the complete sustained by members of congress for the tenth amendment and the ability for the states to actually govern themselves. Or the idea that legislatures that are elected by people in south dakota versus california or new york versus wisconsin connection we have diversity pinions on something as controversial as abortion. So there is a patchwork that exists because theres too many states that have been working on prolife legislation and the state level for literally since roe v. Wade was put in place. In wisconsin, my state falls into that category. And i was in the state senate for 27 years. Worked on a number of different prolife pieces of legislation including constitutional amendments to prohibit partial birth abortion. As we continue to pass those bills, it was all done under the guise of we were walking the fine line right up to roe v. Wade wade. When i was majority leader in 2015, we passed the law prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. It was caught passed before roe v. Wade. That bans abortion in all cases except for the life of the mother. Subject to penalties under a different felony case than the 2015 law. Its my understanding its common for criminal statutes to overlap. And the old law should in no way conflict with the 2015 law. Which also provides for civil claims for damages, for example, against any person who performs an abortion on a partner woman violation of the act. The only difference between the two statutes is one it was written before roe v. Wade, one was written after. The Supreme Court decision in recent dobbs case is binding on the states and annie wisconsin statue that had conflicted with roe should now have full legal force in effect. However, i think were seeing is that democrats who dont trust their legislatures or governors are trying to circumvent the law. Trying to figure out a way of lets work around the local people, local locals, and state legislature because we know better in congress. We always know better. Which is always puzzling to be because theyre such a High Percentage of members of congress that served in the state legislatures. In wisconsin, our governor, governor ubers promise to provide clemency to any position that is charging the Wisconsin Abortion laws. Our attorney general brought a suit against a legislature already. Which is legally questionable and its own right. Asserting the 2015 law supplants the earlier Wisconsin Law because they are quote in direct conflict with each other. I believe the only difference between the two statues that one was written after row and one before. Again. So my question would be to miss glenn foster, wood has been kind of the recent response in the kneejerk that youre seeing kind of from state to state as we look at this distrust for the state legislatures and what they may do or not do in light of the ruling . Most states are moving to protect human life. Theyre moving to put those pre roe laws or those posts laws to enforcement. That 2015 law was a temporary solution to the real problem and it did not repeal wisconsins parole law. So that free says the abortion policy wisconsin which the state that i love. Hackers fan, fox fan. Love the cheesesteak. Wisconsin is also a prolife state. Its going to be free from abortion processes. Do you think that as this quote unquote patchwork exists, that it will be an opportunity for the electorate to kind of revisit some of these issues and adjust compared to what the Supreme Court is done . It is. Thats why we have elected representatives and the American People are going to make their well known. Weve seen that in the polling. We know that the American People supported life. We expect to see that the American People and their elected representatives will pass laws that will protect life Going Forward. Very good. Thank you, i yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Miss escobar. Thank you, mister chairman. Many thanks to our witnesses. Todays hearing is an opportunity for us to exam at the kind of future that republicans including those on the Supreme Court to have shown that they want for us in america. In a nutshell, their future, the future that they are working ons rights for me but not for the. Its about turning back the clock so that our country allows republican controlled states to create second class citizenship for certain groups. Id like to share a brief story. In constituent of mine a mother who i admire tremendously recently told me about her abortion. She and her husband had two children when they learned about a new pregnancy. They were so exit about the news they bought a crib, they were planning for the new baby, they look forward to this future. In her final trimester, her doctor gave her the tragic news that her baby was not viable. And if she carried the baby to term, she would most certainly die leaving her two children motherless. She had to make the difficult decision to terminate her pregnancy. She went to a clinic and in addition to the devastation and sadness that she felt, she had to endure the chiding of protesters who were shouting at her as she walked in. People who thought they should have the last word over the decision she and her doctor made. People who thought they knew better. In the republican parties view and indeed in the laws they have written in states today, this mother would not have been able to terminate this pregnancy. She would have died and the baby would not have survived outside the womb. Her two children would be motherless and her husband would be a widower. So when one of my colleagues claims that quote all life is precious there really should be an asterisk by his statement. Because there are many exceptions to that statement for them. One of them being women. Because apparently women are expendable. This is the Republican Partys vision for women and families and children in america. Where women and even a tenyearold impregnated by rape will be forced to move forward with government mandated birth even as in the case of my constituent when she faced certain death. The republican witness said we should have a hearing on helping american families. Miss foster democrats have indeed had hearings on helping american families. And House Democrats passed a bill that would provide parents with paid family and medical leave so that they could be home with her newborn baby. We passed a bill with access to childcare so that those parents could go to work and provide for their babies. And universal prek for children so that those babies could get a good start on their education. And every republican voted against that. We also had hearings and passed bills to help keep children alive. To have the freedom to live free from the carnage that comes with gun violence. Every republican here voted against that as well. Make no mistake about it. While republicans may be pro forced birth, they are anything but prolife. In republicancontrolled states with the harshest abortion laws, like my own state of texas, we have underfunded schools, failing foster care systems, lack of access to health care. I could go on and on and on. This is what they call being prolife. What else does in the future that americans are plan, that republicans are planning for americans . Justice thomas in his opinion has literally invited states to challenge Marriage Equality, access to Birth Control and more is sure to come. So for americans listening at home, you think you have a right for Birth Control . If you do, think again. You are on their list. You think you have a right to marry who you love . If you do, think again. You are on their list. As republicans continue to try to strip women and children of the rights, creating a whole class of second class citizens. My democratic colleagues and i will continue to fight for you. We trust you, we believe in you, we believe in your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Mister chairman, i yield back. Gentlelady yields back. Mr. Owens thank you, mister chairman. I appreciate the eloquent defensive life offered by many my republican colleagues this morning. I had my voice there isnt recognized the sanctity of all life. Havent grown up in the jim crow south of segregation kkk, im familiar with the true racism intolerance and hate. All due to the color my skin. I see the same thing today in 2022 as the hard left, the socalled party of tolerance, bang the drums of racism and equality inequity do not practice with the preach. The leaked opinion reversal roe v. Wade unleashed carefully planned attacks on proliferations a shuns, violent protests and assassination attempt at the home of Supreme Court justice and his family. In a racially charge Clarence Thomas. Thats nothing new for Justice Thomas. Who is been the target of the elite his love for 40 years. Is that this will bring his second black american our nations history highest court they declared open season with vicious and races attacks. Its because an articulate, confident black american who loves the american tenets of god, country, family. Because hes a black man who dare something differently that they would love for him to think. I would like to share some comments of their comments with this committee. Samuel l. Jackson called Justice Thomas uncle clearance, tweeted the ban on interracial marriages next. Representative Benny Thompson called Justice Thomas uncle tom. Citing his support for voter i. D. And opposition to affirmative action. He stated that Justice Thomas doesnt like black people. He doesnt like being black. Im going to take a second to repeat that line. Justice thomas doesnt like black people. He doesnt like being black. Chicago mayor lightfoot attacked Justice Thomas in a profane rant suggesting the decision would lead to overturning the marriage. Hillary clinton called Justice Thomas an angry person of grievance. Its not just Justice Thomas under attack. Cnn suggested that congresswoman was in the real deal. They believe she holds views outside latino mainstream. She too dares think differently than with the latest left demands. Guest on msnbc, host show you read, called the virginia Lieutenant Governor winsome seater is a black mouth of white supremacy. Twitter twitter allowed uncle tim to chant for hour after senator tim scott before taking action. A white newspaper cartoonist for the utah state Salt Lake City tribune betrayed me as a white clansmen. So typical of the kindness and racism these attacks aimed attacks were aimed at barack obama. Yet we called out by this committee in the media for exactly what it is. Pure racism. This chairman was proud to hold a hearing on it. Id like to tender some advice for those on the left who attempt to divide us with their hateful rhetoric. First, i recommend a good book, i read a couple of decades ago its called how the winds friends and influence people. The hard left is feeling bigtime this area. The second, i suggest you totally must the basic rule of one of americas spirit. We dont respond well to intimidation influence and cowards. This pattern of intolerance is disgusting, unjustified, an american. It was apparently shows how far weve come from a okay stream where our children when they live in a nation where they will not be judged but the color of their skin but a character of the content. Instead of working to delegitimized our institutions, we fought fearmongering tactics and basic Supreme Court wants to take away our rights. We should be honest with American People. Dishonesty is not appreciated by American People and youll see that november this year. Check it out. Roe v. Wade cost us 23 million innocent lives like the post, like the pro slavery democrat 1857. Florida decision. Overcoming rotunno take away concerts right of americans. He put a decision in the state hands. In the hands that we do people where it belongs. To our left, its time to settle down, take off your masks and show your faces. Put down your stones and firebombs, and through civil debate convinces that you are right. My prediction is you have no clue. Meanwhile, black constitution is ana Supreme Court stands with that decision should be revered not ridicule. Last, thought the justices oldschool, i promise will not be intimidated, thank you, i yield back. Mister chairman [inaudible] i have unanimous decision to submit the senatorial testimony of the Supreme Court judges kavanaugh, gorsuch, and amy barrett. Texas woman, 26 charged with murder over self induced abortion. Attacks about against Abortion Provider by activists. And the texas abortion coming through as without objection. Thank you. The chair recognizes himself for five minutes. I want to start by thanking the chairman for holding the urgently needed hearing today. I offer my thanks to all the witnesses for their thoughtfulness and time. As i read through Justice Thomass opinion on dobbs i, think of the heads up he gave us about the farright plan to overturn other establish Constitutional Rights that americans had just taken for granted in their daily lives. In particular, Justice Thomas calls on the court to quote, reconsider all of the courts substances due process president s. Including the 1965 decision in griswold. As well as the courts decision in texas and obergefell. These are of course the three cases establishing the constitution rights to contrasts contraception, non procreative intimacy, and Marriage Equality. In casting down these decision Justice Thomas lets you know the farright majority on the court has not been satisfied to deprive millions of americans of the right to an abortion. Rather, the majority is on a rampage. At against other freedoms currently enjoyed by the American People. As someone who has repeatedly drawn attention to the partisanship of the far right majority of the court, these justices are not people who can simply be reasoned with using sound legal arguments or even the courts own president. I cant help but think of Justice Thomass omission of another case, this has been discussed to some extent today. That case is a 1967 decision called loving the virginia establishing the constitutional right to inspirational marriage. It seems, to me Justice Thomass logic about reconsidering the courts due process president s, the loving decision would follow naturally on his list. In fact, the Supreme Courts 1973 decision in roe v. Wade explicitly relied on a decision in loving virginia. Moreover, the case has cited multiple times Justice Alitos opinion and in the dissent in dot. My republican colleagues would say that Justice Thomass omission of loving the virginia is nothing to do with the fact that hes a black man married to a white woman. Never mind that he tried to block the january Six Committee from seeing documents including evidence of his wife plotting the insurrection at the capitol. He would never do something that was in his personal interest above what the law and sound legal reasoning requires. Professor murray, what does it say to the reputation of the Supreme Court, rather, what does it do to the reputation of the Supreme Court and peoples faith in the institution that justices like Clarence Thomas appear to be deciding based on their own personal preferences and ideology, rather than what the law requires . Thank you, representative john, i will know that judges deciding cases based on their own production is based on the judicial activism that your conservative colleagues announce. I wanted to respond to representative owens comments about racism. Id like to call attention to the sexism of this decision which seems to view the choices of women as somehow illegitimate when they make them. The Supreme Court has virtually ignored american women with this decision and the consequences will be startling in alarming. Thank you, professor. A gallup poll released on the day before but the Dobbs Decision revealed that 75 of americans do not view the court as a legitimate nonpartisan institution. Confidence in the court is vanishing lee low for good reason. The question, is what the is Congress Going to do about it . It were not powerless to stop a rampage against freedom. Congress has a breath taping number of options to rein in the power of the rogue Supreme Court. In the, past congress has deprive the court of jurisdiction to issue certain decisions, its expanded and contracted the number of justices its granted and withheld the courts power to issue injunctions. Its immunize types of death defendants and actions from judicial review. Its suspended causes of action to bring certain challenges, of course its taken other actions. Ive routinely urge this body to take action to reform the Supreme Court. Action that is desperately needed to meet this moment in our history. Thats why i introduce, along with chairman johnson the judiciary act to add four seats to the Supreme Court of the u. S. Efficiently, i propose an amendment to the Womens Health protection act scraping the Supreme Court of his jurisdiction to review that legislation. All revealed its constitutionality and legality to the dc Circuit Court of appeals. Interestingly, the conservatives on the court, specifically Justice Roberts and thomas, have endorsed congresss ability to do these things. Were at a inflection point. Years from now, history will record this as the moment we decided what we will do to defeat the threat of fascism in the country posed by the Republican Party with the Supreme Court as an accomplice. I yield back. The chair recognizes thank you, mister chair. I yield my time to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. Johnston. Thank you, so much, thank you for yielding. Ill bring this home. I think im the last on the republican side. I dont want to upstage him. Theres been a lot of alarmist rhetoric today, the really has. Im just asking miss Sarah Warbelow, something you said later struck me. You lamented the deal done in documents, and rip expressed disdain for the founders who drafted, then thats how it was received, im not sure if that what you intended. Are you aware, or would you agree that america is indeed the most successful, most powerful, and free nation in history the world . I would agree that america is a critically important country, one i love. Its made mistakes, and it continues to make mistakes. As americans we need to come together to correct those mistakes. I apologize if white you took away was a critique of our founders. My critique is that the founders were not representative of the people of the United States. Sure, they did acknowledge that we are in the process of making a more perfect union. And the idea that were not the most exceptional nation in the world i dont think its backed up by objective evidence. Let me say that the great nation, id assume you would agree its a great nation, a very important nation, i will paraphrase what you said. We are, theres a reason for that. Its not by happenstance. Its because we were founded, as my friend and colleague owens noted, on the bold declaration that all men are created equal and in the image of the creator. Because of that we believe every single life has a dignity and value. By the way, your value is not limited to the color of your skin or what neighborhood you grew up in or where he went to school. As the founders noted, as given to you values were given by got. We believe every person should be measured by the content of character, as dr. Martin luther king junior said. We believe, america is founded on this premise, just government protects innocent life. It honors marriage and family and institutions of a society, embracing the influences of religion and morality. We believe in purpose, it should not be a controversial decision, it wasnt in previous generations, that we preserve these ideals and maintain these, as miss foster articulated, when we do that we maintain the goodness of america which has been the secret of urging us. Ive got two minutes, 20 seconds left. I yield to miss foster. Is anything you want to add as we wrap this up today . I would. Justice thomas, he is, hes a philosopher. Hes a textualist. We know that. He has not seeking to strip away rights. He is simply seeking to more firmly ground them in our nations constitution. And by doing that, they will be more secure relieving than before. We know that from a obergefell which had both equal protection and substantive to process for another decision. We know that in the loving decision. Which was founded even more strongly on equal protection and some sort of due process. We know that from all of the lions of this issue that we talked about here today. We also know that some sort of due process has a bit of a checkered pasts. It did not protect workers in lochner, it did not protect black americans who were enslaved. In dred scott. And so we really were looking to redeem the foundation of our nation and to redeem these rights and make sure that they are grounded properly in our nations constitution so that they can be protected for all time to come. On that process. Making a more perfect union. Ill just note, because this is the last anyone are so we will say. We just celebrated to have horses but there is an ace on july 4th. Will steer an experiment insult governance. When experiment on the world stage. With the greatest constitution ever written. Its endured for this long. But it wont endure if we abandon its principles and untie or ourselves in the mornings. Thats with textualism original it was all about. We want to defend this constitution. Its the motto for everybody else around the world. There is a reason, real reasons that we are the greatest nation yet. By gods grace, will continue to be. Theres been a lot said here today. At the end, i hope thats whats come through. That we want to defend those fundamental freedoms. And again, as it said. The very burst of one of the nation. That begins with the recognition that you have an able right to be born. With that, i yield back. Gentleman yields. China recognizes gentlelady from north carolina, miss ross, for five minutes. Thank you, mister chair. And i want to thank all of our witnesses and panelists for joining us today. And the many people who came here in person to hear such important testimony about such important issues. The Supreme Court decision in dobbs versus jacksons Womens Health threatens some of our most fundamental american freedoms. This decision sets the groundwork for the court to overturn past decisions concerning peoples right to privacy, far beyond abortion. As weve heard. Including the right to obtain contraceptives. The right to marry a person of a different race. The right to decide how to raise our own children. The right to protect protection from the government. For interference in our intimate lives. And the right to marry the person we love. Regardless of their sex. The vast majority of americans support these rights. In it is deeply concerning that this court has acted against the will of the people to roll back freedoms. To rollback freedoms. That so many of us have come to enjoy as weve grown up and we have taken them for granted. Overturning the right to contraception in particular could be even more damaging to women and families than the reversal of roe v. Wade. It would lead to far more unintended pregnancies and therefore more abortions. If griswold versus connecticut were overturned as a result of dobbs, married couples and others could be barred from making their own decisions about whether or not to have a child. We do not and should not look to the Supreme Court for advice on and how to raise a family. But this court has inserted itself into the lives of millions of americans nonetheless. Both those in favor and opposed to abortion rights overwhelmingly support the right to contraception. When i advocated for womens rights in north carolina, i found unity on both sides of the political aisle working to expand access to contraception. I got five partisans monsters to support legislation requiring insurance to cover contraception even before the Affordable Care act. Our lead sponsor, a republican doctor. A poll by 5 38 last month found that over 91 of americans believe contraception like condoms and Birth Control pills should be legal. And in fact, slightly more republicans were in favor than democrats in that poll. Similarly, the best majority of american 71 support Marriage Equality. This court which senator mcconnell manipulated to create conservative, a conservative activists majority has corroded at the very fabric of freedom in the United States. Putting many of our most popular and fundamental rights in jeopardy. My first question is for professor murray. Justice thomas in his concurring opinion took aim at these landmark cases. But what effect would removing the right to contraception have on women, men and families in our country . It would be absolutely devastating, representative ross. The right to contraception allows individuals to make decisions about the planning and timing of their families. It allows them to finish their educations to pursue employment opportunities. Women have depended on this and of organizer lives around the availability of this the same way that they organize their lives around the availability of the right to an abortion. So it would be absolutely devastating. And as a followup to that, what effect would it have on public health, on sexually transmitted diseases if condoms were outlawed . All forms of contraception would be unavailability than would have profound effects on public health. We are already seeing some anecdotal evidence around the country of certain forms of health care being tonight individuals on the ground that they may also cause abortions or miscarriages. You could see how this income affects in terms of sexually transmitted diseases. It kind of unavailable. Certain forms of Birth Control run available because they have other indications other uses for which they might be prohibited. Again, this would be absolutely devastating on number of fronts. Thank you, mister chair. I yield back. Gentlelady yields. The turn organizing gentleman from maryland, mr. Raskin, for five minutes. Mister chairman, thank you very much. When this hearing began the gentleman from ohio rattled off a list of incidents of vandalism and graffiti and churches taken place. And he mentioned several of them in my district. And i want to say that i denounce and i categorically reject these outrageous acts of vandalism and graffiti. Breakins against fortunate district. Regardless of who did them. Left, right or center. This mess and. This is not a proper way for anyone to treat other peoples property or churches or to express political opposition. Now, does the gentleman from ohio and who hates colleagues on that side of the aisle reject the acts of the already proven acts of murder and violence that have been taking place against doctors, nurses, Police Officers and Health Care Provider is not over the last several weeks or months but over the last several decades. . Do they announce, today denounced the murder of ob gyn doctor david gone . Of pensacola, florida. Who had been the subject of wanted for service by operation rescue. To my colleagues announce, did they denounce the murder of dr. John britain, a physician in james spirit, a clinic escort also shot to death in pensacola florida. Do they denounce the murder of Shannon Louis and leah nichols, killed in clinic attacks in franklin massachusetts. How about robert sanders, enough to get Police Officer who worked as a Security Guard in Abortion Clinic informing him, alabama. Who was killed when his workplace was bombed. And so on. I could go on all day. I just have a couple of minutes. Murders assaults kidnapping, where do they stand on all of these . Hundreds and hundreds of acts of violence against Abortion Clinics or do they just oppose incidents that take place, we dont know by who for example may district yet. But presumably they think by people on the other side. I denounce it all. Do they denounce at all . I hope that they would. I was hoping my friend from louisiana will be here. Im gland, i know he had to go vote. I wanted my colleagues know, i know that my colleague from louisiana a, mr. Johnson, it was something of this. That five of the justices, a majority of the court, five of the justices in the roe v. Wade majority were appointed by republican president s. What if they know that . Justice blackman who was named the court now into the court by richard nixon. Shes justice berger, nixon, Justice Powell was a nixon appointee, potter stewart, eisenhower, william brennan, eisenhower. Two others in the majority who were democratic appointed, just as marshall and justice douglas, who was still on the point. Two dissenters, one was a democratic appointee, white, and one was a republican appointee. That was basic constitutional doctrine for half a century. Republican appointees kept reaffirming, including justice stevens, the ford appointee, and justice souter, a strong champion of roe versus wade and constitutional privacy. There was a transformation in the Republican Party because they began to insist that opposition to roe v. Wade be a litmus test issue, the central issue judges would have to pass before they got appointed to the bench. It became a decades Long Campaign to overthrow roe versus wade, which had been the handiwork of republican appointees to the court. It has built a wonderful line of precedent about the constitutional right to privacy. And they were so emphatic about that in 2006 they blocked president obamas nominee, merrick garland, from even getting a hearing. The chief judge of the d. C. Court of appeals did not get a hearing because they said it was too close to the election, a year before the election. What happened four years later, with Amy Comey Barrett . They ran through her nomination in the last several weeks of the trump administration. When voting had already begun across the country. In early voting, in their madcap determination to create an anti row majority. Thats why where we are when we are. You know what im saying . They played politics that way, i hope every republican in the country whose prochoice decides to abandon their dangerous Extremist Party and come to a party that stands up for the freedom of the people. I yield back, mister chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from missouri, miss bush, for five minutes. Thank you, mister chairman. So, just a few weeks ago, on juneteenth, i introduced into the congressional record a document to commemorate the unveiling of the memorial monument, the freedom suits memorial paid tribute to cases that black people filed for freedom from bondage in st. Louis. The most famous case was that of dred scott, in which the court held black people had no rights which the white man was found to respect. Dred scott is buried in st. Louis, my district, his legacy serves as a reminder of the dangers in believing that the Supreme Court has always been adjust body, it has not. Substance and new products process was birth in the aftermath of the civil war. It was not legal doctrine that led to the emancipation proclamation, it was not the court. It was not the constitution. Which was written to guarantee the rights of land holding right men. It was not moral righteousness that led to the emancipation proclamation or the emancipation of black people. It was violence and more. It was the resistance and the persistence of abolitionists that put us into chattel slavery. It was because of our freedom dreams that the collective dreams of black people, past and present, who demanded to live in a world free of bondage. Its not lost on me as a descendant of enslaved people, and the first black congresswoman from the state of missouri, that my existence in this space alone is a testament to the freedoms denied the Supreme Court, by the Supreme Court of the United States in the dred scott decision a, hundred 65 years ago. Professor murray, footnote 41 of the majority opinion in dobbs makes a eugenics argument on the impact of abortion in black communities. Can you explain the significant nature of footnote 41 with contraception . Sure, im gonna use the term by representative owings, you might view this as a condescending racism. The court attempts to link the history of the Birth Control movement to the history of eugenics for the purpose of arguing that reproductive rights are rooted in the history of racial injustice. I believe this footnote doesnt bear on the logic of the dobbs opinion. But rather is there to seat an opening for eventually overruling the right to contraception on the ground that is a racial injustice, the idea being that Margaret Sanger and the Eugenics Movement was essentially trafficking in racial injustice. For that reason the right to contraception should be overruled as a means of remedying that racial injustice. Its the most craven form of racial condescension, into part because its imperative by those who do nothing to assist the black community. Whether in their judicial opinions or in their actions. Thank you, another question for professor murray. The Reconstruction Amendments were drafted not only to eradicate slavery but also to eradicate the vestiges of slavery and all forms of bondage. The drafters wanted to go farther than making black people citizens, and wanted to guarantee a sense of liberty. Can you talk about how the drafters does find or understood liberty when drafting the 13th and 14th amendment . Yes, the 13th amendment abolished slavery, the 15th gave black and the right to vote. The 15th was primarily concerned with eradicating all of the slavery, the very things that distinguish slavery from freedom. Among, them the absence of bodily autonomy and control over appropriation. This was clear, they knew about forced work as a means of expanding the slave population in the period before the civil war. They were responding to this. They also wanted to correct the injustice of having no family integrity. Black of control over children, eligible for civil marriage. In that grant of liberty in the Court Amendment proceeds all of these rights that have been denied to the enslaved. They are now given to them. They werent explicit because they werent view to be captured in that grant of liberty. Justice alito says nothing about this. Its a selected itinerary that is opinion exist. Thank you, professor mary. As has been noted, this is the first time the court has taken away a fundamental right. Its important to note that our most fundamental rights have never been safe, and they never will be guaranteed so long as they depend on the ideological win of nine night unaccountable an unelected justices with lifetime appointments. Thats why we need to limit the power of justices by expanding the court. Instituting time limits enacting a code of ethics and reinforcing why congress should strip the right to take away fundamental rights. Thank, you i yield back. The gentleladys time is expired. This includes todays hearing, we thank the witnesses for participating. Without objection members will have five days to submit additional questions for the witness or materials for the record. Without objecting the hearing is adjourned. On the same day, president bi