Skip to main content

tv   Hearing on Privacy Civil Rights in Post- Roe America  CSPAN  July 26, 2022 8:01am-10:01am EDT

8:01 am
8:02 am
good morning, everyone.
8:03 am
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 morning's hearing. what's next threatening individual freedoms in a post-roe v wade world. to remind members we have established an e-mail list dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions or other materials members might want to offer as a part of today's hearing. we would like to submit materials, please send them to the e-mail 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, i'm 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
8:04 am
society we must confront today in the appalling decision in dobbs v jackson women's 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 women's 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
8:05 am
pregnancy, and instead gave that power to the government making decisions about when and how to start a family is central to women's lives. it is the very essence of what it means to be secure in one's 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 don't 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 behind-the-scenes to plan a national strategy including the push for the strict nationwide ban on the republicans taking
8:06 am
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 right-wing majority on the supreme court seems to challenge the broad arc of the nation's 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
8:07 am
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
8:08 am
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.
8:09 am
to secure the blessings and liberty to ourselves and our prosperity in the constitution's 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 isn't misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize or decision concerns the right to abortion and no other rights.
8:10 am
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 people's 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 child's life right up until and they are so pro- abortion that they are willing to engage in all kinds of efforts to intimidate the
8:11 am
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 don't 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 we've never seen. something that's never happened before. the leaking of a draft opinion
8:12 am
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
8:13 am
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 that's 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 that's 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.
8:14 am
i think it's 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 spray-painted 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, mother's day, individuals attempted to break into their oregon office and vandals spray-painted pro- abortion messages on the site of a pro-life pregnancy center and a nonprofit center in madison, wisconsin was set on fire and vandalized and the words if abortion isn't safe then you aren't either. activists threatening in
8:15 am
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 aren't 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 isn't 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
8:16 am
pro-life 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 spray-painted with, quote, abortion is in safe, neither are you. june 204th, saint anthony's catholic church vandalized with authorities saying the suspect painted messages saying they think i can't stay here in the committee. lynchburg virginia, pro-
8:17 am
abortion activists vandalized the pregnancy center. june 205th saint patrick philadelphia defaced with a birth the church and spray-painted 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 aren't 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
8:18 am
threatening messages. the 26th tallahassee, florida saint phillips church targeted. june 27, upper west side of new york, the pro-choice network put graffiti if abortions are and save neither are you on the roman catholic church. twenty-seventh 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 isn't safe, you aren't 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
8:19 am
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 pro-life 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
8:20 am
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
8:21 am
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 today's 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
8:22 am
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. she's also an affiliated professor at george washington university and george mason law school. she received her bachelor's 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
8:23 am
life and the counsel for the alliance for freedom. and the jgetoro 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
8:24 am
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
8:25 am
expired. professor murray, you may begin. >> on the threats to the individual freedom and a post-world war ii. my name is melissa murray and i'm 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 women's 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
8:26 am
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
8:27 am
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 long-standing presidents is on june 204th, the supreme court announced its decision on dobbs versus jackson women's 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, child-rearing and chd sexual intimacy. despite the majority's
8:28 am
assurances of the opinion it is the right to choose and it doesn'tcast doubt on these other precedents. it's 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 same-sex marriage and the right to sexual intimacy. accordingly, the decision invites reconsideration of griswold versus connecticut which protects the right to contraception and hodges same-sex marriage, lawrence versus texas that protects the right to private sexual relations and many other decisions in the courts along
8:29 am
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
8:30 am
trusted and communities affected by these divisions shouldn't be satisfied with these baseless claims. and i for one am not satisfied with the majority's 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 nation's 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.
8:31 am
i was born in a post-roe world to a mother who fought for her five daughters reproductive rights and loved us all the more for being able to choose us. i'm 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 didn't need to the decision to overturn roe as impacting the results and other substantive due process cases. even saying it's 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
8:32 am
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 double-stranded constitutional roots. and not only substantive due process, but also equal
8:33 am
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 same-sex relationships and 35 states have laws or constitutional amendments on the books. they bore same-sex couples from marrying despite the acceptance for lgbtq people coming out at a cost. anti-lgbtq hate crimes in violence are at historically high levels. state legislatures have been particularly hostile since the decision. since 2015, 1200 anti-lgbtq bills have been filed with state legislators with perceived at risk the state legislators are likely to readable those
8:34 am
efforts. to recriminalize intimacy between consenting adults and undermine marriage of same-sex 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 women's 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. ..
8:35 am
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.
8:36 am
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 there's no liberty without length. the promotion along with witnesses worship money and special interest continue to wield a deadly power in washington. today's hearing is a testament
8:37 am
to the menace of today's 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, it's 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. it's in our nature it's 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 today's hearing should be about. how to serve american mothers, fathers, and families. let's have a hearing about that.
8:38 am
republicans boldly and courageously lead the expansion of maternal and prenatal care during the reagan era. there's 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.
8:39 am
out of that trauma came clarity of my vocation my life's work as a constitutional attorney and as a human rights advocate. as president ceo of americans united for life, i've 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 zero-sum game. no one needs to lose for others to win.
8:40 am
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. let's be good to one another. let's be better, let's heal, let's 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.
8:41 am
i am case that made marriage equality the law of the land. i felt joy at the lawfully wedded man. nine years after my husband's 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 john's room. john was nearing the end of his life they had a right to ignore a dying man's important relationship to ignore any request will using john and i made as husbands. the moral? is that just? is that right?
8:42 am
we were not equal in life even when we are most vulnerable to the terminal illness. john's 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 i've 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 full-time caregiver is drunk most every ability due to als. nothing was easy about that.
8:43 am
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 same-sex 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
8:44 am
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. you're 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.
8:45 am
those couples gained so much rights protection dignity and suspect. when united states to argue it's 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 un-american to tell the nation's ltp their families ... when they're deployed to a different state? is that how you think them for their service? i show them respect question people's features parents felt joy and hope for their children. humans start not marriage equality she would've 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?
8:46 am
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? what's it does. next the dissent mourns possible
8:47 am
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 long-standing precedent over 50 years is terrifying. decisions is made nor for advancing the rights of the people. medical care for people.
8:48 am
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. i've a deep fear that still remains it is bubbling up once again. it's 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
8:49 am
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 same-sex 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 john's room. to be with john that could have prevented me from being withdrawn as he took his last
8:50 am
breath. i'm to know that we weren't 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 john's 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?
8:51 am
i'm 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 majority's 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. hard-working families continue to struggle to make ends meet in the face of soaring inflation not just direct 9.1% the highest
8:52 am
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 people's elected representatives in state legislatures or by ninth unelected, unaccountable judges
8:53 am
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
8:54 am
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.
8:55 am
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 that's an issue that ought to be addressed to the dangers of vibratory rhetoric this being employed by pro- abortion radicals, the democrats have been single-mindedly 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 kavanaugh's 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
8:56 am
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 pro-life 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.
8:57 am
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 women's bodily autonomy, operates to really get those women to second-class status. and if you believe that, why?
8:58 am
execute represented johnson. mr. the dog's opinion withdrawn the fundamental right reduces them to second-class citizenship. the court acknowledged of planned parenthood versus casey 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to an abortion, recognized in roe the right to control its reproductive capacity is essential to women's equality as equal citizens. again taking this right away with the ability of women to control their destinies. it is or was a right reckon is the a member of the control over appropriation which 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, it's a fact, isn't it, the majority's reasoning
8:59 am
and 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 thomas's 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 same-sex
9:00 am
marriages. >> those rights include, those 14th amendment due process privacy and liberty guarantees implicate -- 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 one's choice, as the court recognized and 1967's lemon versus virginia is part of the essential civil rights of man, the court said that in its decision. and also sides of the decision on equality grounds. noting that virginia's 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
9:01 am
significant due process concerns because marriage is a fundamental right. i am confused as to why it was not included in justice thomas's 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, what's a threat that is a dobbs decision posed to access to contraception and other reproductive health care? >> i think the conch threats and copper session is quite evident, the dobbs opinion, the court attempts to link the right to contraception 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
9:02 am
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 i'm going to have a very strict gavel. a light tap will be a 52nd morning. 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
9:03 am
citizens. and 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
9:04 am
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 children's major organs are functioning, they can suck their thumb, they are fully formed noses, lips, eyes, eyebrows. they have facial expressions. 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 routed. 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 pro-lifers as people who do not care about the health of the mother. this is fundamentally untrue. pro-lifers care about the mother and the child. the
9:05 am
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 pro-life 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
9:06 am
miss foster. i believe there is a question that he wanted to answer. you are cut off. >> yes, the pro-life 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 resources, the high the material races, the need for their babies and their needs for postpartum care and the needs for 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
9:07 am
deserve support. that is exactly what pregnancy centers offer. >> thank you very much, i'd 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 mike murphy a few questions. it has been gone over pretty much but i would like to get into the legal distinctions of griswold and roe versus sam obergefell and loving. we're two of those cases decided only on substantial due process of the others on due process and protection. >>,. that is correct, represented cohen. >> if that's correct, i thought it was. i appreciate you clarifying for. me how could one distinguish the case on gay marriage, and
9:08 am
the case on interracial marriage? is there a way to distinguish it at all legally? >> to my mind, there's 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 one's 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 virginia's indistinguishable will from obergefell, if taken up, if
9:09 am
justice clarence thomas suggested, it could be and, probably would be struck down by this court? >> i'm 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 kennedy's opinion. i would simply say that when it comes to those cases, unlike roe and casey, we haven't 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 -- >> this foster, miss foster, thank you. i do want to say this. even though there are just two paragraphs, they are the same. they are similar. i would suggest that your expertise, if you specialize an
9:10 am
ethics, i think the right to marry, the person of your choice is at risk, is only held up by a thin thread between parrot two paragraphs 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 of gender. miss fish bach had a nice arguments about the child at six weeks and the child at 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 15-week ban. justice roberts was outvoted by his five radical members of the court. who took the federal society pledged to go to the
9:11 am
court and get rid of roe v. wade. they did their instructions. they were pavlovian. and they responded. that has hurt american women. someone earlier said, and i hate to think this, because i love america, i'm an american. i love america. i love this country. i think it's a great country. they said, we are the freest country in the world. i think it was miss foster. right now, -- there are few other countries along with canada their most rear than america. when we cut women away from having the opportunity to get their families and their bodies to be their choices. the whole idea, not outlined by going back to the states is a red herring. the fact is, hard-core red states of the southeast, one time known as the confederacy. there are about
9:12 am
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 gate marriages, wrong i yield back. >> mr. johnson of louisiana. >> mr. cohen is wrong, canada's most free country in the world, young people. america is the greatest nation in the world. it must, frame a successful nation, because finally, now we have been, we've tried 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 to that truth. brought us back to that -- i will not yield, mr. cohen. your comments are absurd. >> your comments are absurd. you're absurd! >> it's mr. johnson,
9:13 am
sinister current. >> thank you, this hearing is absurd, the democrat majority has called us for this hearing entitled the threat to individual freedom and opposed road world. come on. the first inalienable, individual freedom is the right to be born, it's the right to life we, boldly declared that and our nation's 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. it's obvious,
9:14 am
the point of their tweets, all the attention they are trying to gather their, to get people to harass conservative justices when they're out in public. they don't have any individual freedoms. hey, man, they are fair game. then senator elizabeth warren, i mean, she is completely unhinged now. she said pro-life 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
9:15 am
the aisle are looking for, okay, they filed an hr 82 96 in this congress. they call it the women's health protection act. in 2022. we call it the abortion on demand until birth act. you want to know live? it's 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. that's not talking point. and allows for discriminatory abortions on the basis of the baby sex, race, and disability. it would override pro-life 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 protect women from coercion, they don't care the, attended mans. it zeal for this demands that they override all. that their bill, it includes vague language that we could also weaken conscience protections for medical professionals. and limit the right to refuse to
9:16 am
participate in abortion. do you think that they're 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 look it up. hr 3755 -- abortion on demand until birth. that's with this agenda demands. miss foster said it so well earlier, you mentioned this agenda, it begins with the humanizing the unborn child. i just have a minute left. in my experience, my colleagues here, they are not able to acknowledge that what is inside the mother's womb is actually a child. in your, work your experience, has not been years as well? >> it has been. >> there's a reason, i, think they want to acknowledge that the child. it allows them to pursue this radical abortion on demand until birth. i believe, this is for all the young people here, and those watching. i believe, 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
9:17 am
pro-life country, increasingly so, because we have medical technology. we have 40 ultrasounds, no one can lie to us anymore and tell us, it's a blob of tissue. that it's 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 it's, 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 pro-life country, we should be, another time, i yield back. >> the chairman yields back, miss jackson-lee. >> i thank the gentleman very much, since we're the middle of a tutorial, let me speak from the heart. speak on the ears of sea reserves on this committee. the years of knowledge. i've ruined lives with criminal approaches to trying to, before roe. to help persons, women,
9:18 am
make their determination on their reproductive freedom. this is an absurd posture that is being taken here. i respect the religious beliefs of all. i respect that there are differences in this nation. it is an outrage what is going on here in the united states. it is clearly evidence that we are in trouble. the ninth amendment is clear, along with the other protections, if it is not an enumerated, it is still, it does not deny me the 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 marry someone of a different race. you know what states rights are, hanging black people. you know states rights are, the denial of civil rights. that's what states
9:19 am
rights can be. leave it to the elected persons of the state, if they had done, that i would still be a second-class citizen. it took the 13th amendment to say that slavery was illegal. let me first of all say, we know that in ohio, a ten-year-old rape victim was denied an abortion and forced to travel across state lines access care. we know that a package was left at a women's 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. and identified person set fire to a planned parenthood clinic. we can go on and on. is that america? i
9:20 am
don't think. so professor murray, help me understand. i've 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 precedent 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
9:21 am
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 refugee look for and civil rights, who don't merit, the defense of marriage, it is no longer there. professor murray? >> you are exactly right, representative lee, the stare decisis of the court -- indeed roe is a precedent. it is repeatedly been reaffirmed until it was overruled on a june 24th. that provides predictability for individuals. the assurance that they know that their rights are protected. i think part of the outrage that you are describing
9:22 am
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 judicial 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
9:23 am
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, that is exactly what justice alito repudiated for the court and his majority opinion in dobbs. >> looking at dobbs for a moment, it certainly does undo previous decisions of the court. is that unheard of for the court decades later? to reconsider decisions in light of some change, not just in the court, but in the times? >> it
9:24 am
certainly is not unheard of. and, fact just two days ago, there was a hearing in the senate. one of the senators was talking about the janice cases a couple of years ago. there have been numerous other cases that follow those lines. >> since less sheila jackson lee was up before us, seem to be so certain that you should never, never, never overturn precedent, that these people lied, what would happen if a dred scott were still in place today? i will go there. freedom is what we are discussing. in this case, freedom to live for the unborn. what would happen, would happen, if we simply said, once the court makes a decision -- >> will be no gentlemen leal? >> of course not. >> there's a reason why there are certain factors that the -- going
9:25 am
through stare decisis analysis. if those factors are met, then a case may be right for reconsideration. obviously, we do have stare decisis for a reason. we follow precedent. it is correct and rights and constitutional. not just because, you know, a few man wrote some words down on paper. a few decades ago. >> let's go into the decision it was overturned. is it fair to say that the previous decisions, including roe, basically said that the unborn child had no rights, all the rights up until, in the case of california, many other states, belong to the mother and the mother exclusively? that was essentially the law of the land federally guaranteed. >> yes. >> by overturning it, does that inherently give any rights to the unborn child? >> it does not. as we speak here today, we
9:26 am
have simply taken away the denial of all rights of a child. and left to the states, the opportunity to balance the rights of an unborn child, viable and able to feel pain, viable and able to be born alive. >> is that right. that is the balance the court -- in both roe and casey. this court has achieved it. >> is it one of the inherent flaws in roe and casey that what they did was they were only given rights to the mother, they never recognized the right of the living child inside the womb? >> correct. >> i'm a california. i know my speaker, speaker pelosi, and my state considers that a child already outside the womb still doesn't have rights in my state. because we still are
9:27 am
effectively partial birth abortion state. the question i think for all of us here today, do we trust the legislatures of the state to give rights to the unborn child, the nearly born child, the just 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 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 say the chairman of this committee when i came to congress will be having that discussion if you are here, alive, today, he would be talking about respect for life. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, mr. cicilline, thank you mister chairman, on june 24th, the supreme court's radical conservative majority made clear that they would not only
9:28 am
getting 50 years of women's establish constitutional rights. to make their own reproductive decisions. but that abortion was just the first on a laundry list of rights that they were prepared to eviscerate. privacy and intimate relations if, the right raise your children, how you see fit, the right to contraception, the right to same sex marriage. 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. our democracy is premised on a notion of basic individual autonomy. we don't let states, or even the federal government, take away rights that the constitution establishes. and so, it's not a question of, do we trust states to do it? do we trust the individual? in this case, it's women to make their
9:29 am
own health care decisions. it's astonishing to me that anyone who is read this decision is not worried about many other rights that are issue a moderate danger. regardless of what your political party is, whatever your views on abortion, there are lots and lots of rights also at risk. i hope all of americas paying attention to this decision. you are right, well established freedoms, are hanging in the balance. that brings me to my first question, miss warbelow, thank you for your incredible testimony. thank you mr. obergefell for your really compelling testimony, for bringing marriage equality to millions of millions of people this country. if you look at justice alito's 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 starkly 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, it's important to
9:30 am
note that it's very difficult to discern original intent. we cannot always know what is 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, it's 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
9:31 am
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 nation's 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
9:32 am
choose your procreative future is not just implicit in the guarantee of liberty, it is actually explicit in the 14th amendments ratifier's views of this anti slavery amendment. so, perceived from the ethic. so, it does have important repercussions overruling the right contained in roe, it does have important repercussions for in vitro fertilization. as you know, part of the in vitro process often requires the selective elimination of embryos. so, there are lots of questions about whether or not this limitation on the right to procreate could have broad repercussions for assisted reproductive technology, including art and ivf. >> thank you, mister chairman, i'm asking -- introduced into the record the mid states freedom into the world 2022 country report, because sadly, americas less free than it was just a few years ago. so, this isn't a question about what we think, this is a report that shows that we have slipped. americas
9:33 am
is 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 on the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you, miss foster, for me -- senators in my district and my state, does your pregnancy center care that you're involved with, does that care end when a child is born? >> it does not. >> what happens after that? >> after the child is born in the pregnancy center 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
9:34 am
for them. >> such a contrast that you would care for the mother, care for the life of the child. such a contrast to what multiple conversations with the former director of planned parenthood in sherman, texas, remote to trivia no, she was a bright shining star in her high school, got pregnant, and then was urged to have an abortion, she didn't. she didn't go to college. what years later found there was an opening for a director of planned parenthood, she applied, and was thrilled to have gotten the position. she was very smart. but during her time there, she said, you know, the emphasis was not in the monthly directors meeting, it was not on the number of abortions, even though that's where the huge money came from. it was on
9:35 am
how many young girls did you get started on birth control? the younger the better because they were taught from their directorship at planned parenthood that the younger you can get a girl started on birth control, the better the odds are that she'll forget to take the pill, she'll get pregnant, and she'll have an abortion. they are nurtured, i'm using that very loosely, by people that worked at planned parenthood. look, your mother is not gonna understand, you come to me, don't go to your mother, i'll understand. they got that relationship, what really ended up driving her away from all of that was the thought that they would come between me and my daughter. that was too much. now, we've been hearing my body my choice from people for so long. that's
9:36 am
true. it's also true of the child. we had that fraud exposed when we heard from so many who have been screaming, my body my choice, as they screamed that everybody has to have an experimental drug, which has caused great damage and death in people, alters the rna, but you're gonna have to have that injected into your body. i don't care what your biology is. that was exposed as not really being as consistent, actually, coming into the fraud area. let me tell you, we sat here in this room and listened to an abortionist talk about how he did the late term abortion. our daughter was born 8 to 10 months premature, weeks, prematurely. back then, it was a big deal, we didn't know if
9:37 am
she would live or not. my wife had to stay at the hospital. she encouraged me to follow the ambulance going to the higher level neonatal icu. the doctor there said, you know, she can't recognize your face because her eyes aren't working that well yeah. she knows your voice, she's been listening to your voice for months. so, talk to her. and, you know, touch her little face, and, you know, you can be there for two hours and take a break, come back. they had her hooked up to all these things and her breathing was very erratic, very shallow, her heart was very erratic, very fast. eventually, the doctor came over, he said, do you notice the monitors? they have
9:38 am
stabilized. he said, she is drawing strength and life from you. 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. >> thank you so much, mister chairman. >> you know, it's 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 we'll 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 didn't think so when they made their arrest. why is it so easy for some to always say assault against women, it
9:39 am
must be the woman's 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? i've 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? the only thing that matters is denying them their individual constitutional
9:40 am
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, it's a girl. my colleagues on the other side of
9:41 am
the aisle have the audacity to say freedom is what we are discussing here. well, you're right, that's exactly what we're 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. what's next? we ought to be asking ourselves, okay, what's 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
9:42 am
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 that's 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.
9:43 am
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 quarter-ing 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. that's exactly what this decision and its progeny will do. >> thank you so much, mister chair, i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. >> what's the most likely circumstance when a same-sex couple would benefit from abortion access? >>
9:44 am
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. what's 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 didn't ask, i know they are, which is more likely? >> i think that's impossible to know. >> we have tens of thousands of same-sex 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 you're 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 same-sex couples adopting? >> it may not be more likely, but it's an important interest. >> is it less likely? i'm not asking about the importance of the interest, i'm limited on time. you would can see that it certainly more likely in america to have same-sex couples adopting the need to lesbians having
9:45 am
unwanted pregnancies as a consequence of sexual assault, right? >> there may also be a misunderstanding about how same-sex couples formed families. i also think it's important to note that many bisexual men 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 who's bisexual. they can be in long term monogamous relationships. >> i don't that's to be dismissive. you're saying lesbian women are also capable of being into men? >> that is not what i said, i said bisexual. >> my questions about lesbians, same-sex 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
9:46 am
same-sex couples somehow reorient to be a pro abortion enterprise, that could actually result in fewer same-sex couples having access to the family formation that gives them fulfilled lives. are you concerned about that? >> but i would be concerned about is forcing women to carry a pregnancy simply to satisfy another couples desire to have a child. there are many methods to family formation, many same-sex couples use fertility treatments, assisted reproductive technologies, in addition to adoption. 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. that's why it's astonishing to me that people who would
9:47 am
purport to advocate for gay americans say, we need abortion on demand. that's the very people who are engaging in these adoptions. maybe it's really not about the benefit of gay couples, maybe it's 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 they've stood up for the interests and families of gay couples, same-sex couples, might be co-opted 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
9:48 am
your testimony, miss warbelow, you said states were likely to redouble their efforts against marriage equality is the consequence of the dobbs decision. there isn't a single state in america where there's been a single legislative committee that is held a single vote on a single bill to attack marriage equality following dobbs, has there? >> i'm sorry sir, dobbs just happened, most legislatures are not in session. however, -- >> that's 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're in the midst of an extreme right wing assault by illegitimate supreme court majority on women's 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
9:49 am
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. it's 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 baby's birthday as extreme. >> i think what you've heard people within pro choice movement articulate is that we support a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive health care decisions. that's not extreme. that's mainstream. it's mainstream if you support the fact that this decision,
9:50 am
reproductive decisions, should be between a woman and her doctor. we don't need ted cruz or anyone else involved in making that decision. that is extreme. what you want to bring about. it's extreme to criminalize abortion care throat america, that's extreme. what's extreme is imposing government mandated pregnancies. even, apparently, in some states and the case of a ten year old girl being raped. that's extreme. that is extreme. it's extreme to unleash bounty hunters on the women and children of america. that is extreme. that's not pro-life. what's interesting is by, the pro life movement often, so-called movement, often says that they support the american
9:51 am
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. that's not pro family, that is anti-child. it's anti-child 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 anti-child. it's anti-child 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
9:52 am
you behave in an extreme way, that is anti-child. it's anti-family. now, professor murray, you know are familiar with the fact that several supreme court justices during their senate testimony seemed to strongly suggest that they viewed roe v. wade as settled law, is that right? >> that's correct, representative jeffries. >> several of those individuals who testified that roe v. wade was settled law, suggesting that they weren't gonna touch it, for a variety of reasons, stare decisis, the principle of reliance, is a big part of supreme court jurors prudence, they then turned around the first chance they got and stripped away a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive health care decisions, is that true? >> that is correct. >> now, the same justices, some of them, are suggesting, we don't have
9:53 am
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. >> 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 believed that they are not going after the substantive due process rights that are the subject of this hearing? >> the time of the gentleman's expired. mr. jordan. >> miss foster, is an extreme and an effort to intimidate the court when left-wing 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.
9:54 am
>> is it extreme when an effort to intimidate the court when the speaker of the house holds up a bill for four weeks designed to protect, giving protection to a supreme court justice's 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 they're protesting at a 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 left-wing activists, is that extreme and an effort to intimidate pro-life americans around the world? >> yes. >>
9:55 am
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, that's correct. >> this is the second time you've testified in front of our committee? >> it is. >> you testified a few weeks ago. what date, can you, i don't the, date was may, three weeks ago, four weeks ago? >> something like that. yeah. post leak. >> post leak, i think it is my, middle of may that you testified. video 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. >> that's when they started? you testified as a republican
9:56 am
witness, pro-life witness in from this committee, then you start again for, it's as a result you not to have a security detail. is that right? >> that is correct. >> so it's not just the pro-life clinics and churches, it's 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, it's terrible, i wish no one, i don't anyone to have these things, doesn't matter what side of the political side you're on, all i know is that in ten weeks we've had 50 happen at pro-life pregnancy centers and two churches. miss warbelow, do you agree the leaking of the dobb's opinion? >> i do not, i do want to clarify that is not the first time that a supreme court opinion has been leaked. we don't know who leaked the opinion or for what purpose. >> i don't pretend to know who leaked, i just asked if he
9:57 am
agreed with the leak, someone on the left seemed 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 evidenced by the actions taken by speaker pelosi and holding up the legislation and the lack of efforts to enforce the stature 18 usc section 1507 by the executive branch and justice department when you have two branches of government looking to be a part of the left effort to intimidate a separate and equal branch of government, if find that very troubling. it's one who understands the constitution, give me your thoughts on that. >> i agree it's 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, their church, their ministry, or in the womb. >> yeah, well said, well said. the idea that we had an assassination attempt on a
9:58 am
sitting justice, in america, as my colleague mr. johnson said, the freest and greatest country ever, it is just so wrong. it's 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 seen that play out in the last ten weeks here in our great country. that is unfortunate. i hope it changes. with that, mister chairman, i yield back. mr. lieu? >> you, chairman nadler. you're going to hear a lot of words from my republican colleagues today on this committee. all you have to do is give you one example. that is devastating to their statements. 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've authorized it. what did mcgraw publicans do? they
9:59 am
smeared her, they said she was lying. in fact, at least one republican member of this committee publicly tweeted that she lied. and then quietly deleted that tweet. guess what? her perpetrator was arrested. i call on any maga republican who smeared this little girl to publicly apologize. the story gets worse than that. this little girl had to go to indiana to get an abortion, or abortion care. guess what maga republicans are doing now? they're going after the doctor. that's right, they're going after the doctor who helped this little girl. because the truth is, maga and far-right republicans want government mandated pregnancy is for everyone, including ten year old rape victims. that is extreme.,. when you read it, it's clear that the multiple supreme court justices lied in
10:00 am
order to get confirmed. you >> at this point, we will leave this program. watch the rest on c-span dot org. drug policy experts are getting ready to give an update on the rise of fentanyl overdose deaths, especially among minorities. they are testifying before members of the senate health committee. you are watching live coverage, here on c-span three. good morning, so that health education, labor, and health will please come to order. today we are having a hearing on the fentanyl crisis that is decimating our communities. i will have an opening statement followed by senator cassidy, and then we will introduce


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on