code. we have given feedback on the first round of plans that were submitted and are working actually to, at this point, to give feedback on the second round of plans. in fact, the firms have now submitted a third round of plans -- >> i'm sorry, chairman. i'm just a little bit confused. jpmorgan submitted a round of plans in 2012, and my understanding is that neither the fed nor the fdic said that those plans were not credible. it then submitted plans in 2013, and neither the fed nor the fdic said they were not credible. and it has submitted plans in 2014. so i'm not quite sure on whether you're saying the plans are not credible and you're continuing to talk with them and asking them to change their plans. is that the case? >> well, we're working to give

these firms feedback on their second round of submissions. and i think what we need to do is to give them a road map for where we see obstacles to orderly resolution under the bankruptcy code and to give them an opportunity to address those obstacles. >> i appreciate that you're doing that, but the statute, it seems to me, is pretty clear here. that it's mandatory these plans be submitted each year and that each year you determine whether or not the plans are credible. and i guess the question i'm asking is, have they ever gotten to a plan that you can say with a straight face is credible? >> well, i've understood this to be a process. these are extremely complex documents for these firms to produce. our second round of submissions we're looking at plans that run

into tens of thousands of pages. and i -- i think what was intended is that this determination you're talking about, about whether or not they're credible, do they -- the question is, do they facilitate an orderly resolution? and i think we need to give these firms feedback. >> i'll stop there because we're running out of time. but i have to say, chair yellen, i think the language in the statute is pretty clear. that you are required, the fed is required to call it every year on whether these institutions have a credible plan. and i remind you, there are very effective tools that you have available to you that you can use if those plans are not credible. including forcing these financial institutions to simplify their structure or forcing them to liquidate some of their assets. in other words, break them up. and i just want to say one more

thing about this process. the plans are designed not just to be reviewed by the fed and the fdic, but also to bring some kind of confidence to the marketplace and to the american taxpayer that, in fact, there really is a plan for doing something if one of these banks starts to implode. you said that these plans run to the tens of thousands of pages. all i can say is that what's been released to the public is 35 pages long. that's about one page for every hundred subsidiaries that have to be dealt with. i think that the plans that have been released by these companies have not been something that the public can look at and say, yeah, i see they've got a plan to get through this. so i hope you would urge greater transparency by these large financial institutions that are required to submit these plans, and i hope the fed will be making a call on whether or not

the fed under its statutory responsibility sees these plans as credible for resolving these financial institutions if they hit financial trouble. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair yellen, i would like to thank you for your testimony. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations]

>> we are at the wallace country's center 50 miles south and west of des moines and the birthplace palm of henry wallace. three generations of rollinses the patriarch known as uncle henry was the founder of though wallace the farmer magazine his son henry was u.s. secretary of agriculture under wilson and his son was born on this form and went on to become editor of the magazine then after serving as u.s.

secretary of agriculture through 1941 and then 1941 through 45 he was the vice president of roosevelt and u.s. secretary of agriculture known for the adjustment act with the first time that farmers were asked not to produce. of first people could not believe the things he was proposing regarding that but then as prices went up they started to listen to him. people referred to him as a genius secretary of agriculture.

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you for joining us today and to our witnesses and ranking member senator grassley and the chairman of the judiciary committee for giving me this to share this hearing. we are here today to hear testimony regarding the women's health protection act removing barriers to reproductive rights and the first panel consists of a number of colleagues who

have views of this issue we welcome you this morning from my colleagues in the senate who is my co-sponsor in the measure that is now pending before the senate in this area we have support for more than 30 senate colleagues and maya understanding is the companion measure introduced by the representative has 125 co-sponsors in the house or thereabouts. the reason for the bill is the cascading avalanche of reproductive health care around the country increasingly in effect an avalanche of measures that purportedly protect women's health care but in reality restrict reproductive rights this bill is about stopping

laws when really they interfere with the doctor patient relationship and have the fact of a practical impact to harm women to limit constitutionally protected rights our goal, speaking for myself is to stop politicians from playing doctor and officials from interfering in a significant in medical decisions that should be made by eight medical experts and patients together. this legislation would eliminate limitations on access to abortion services and eliminate the targeting and restrictions against abortion providers and clinics no matter where a woman may live. in fact, more than half the states now have these

unconstitutional restrictions and the majority of women with in those states. they have passed 92 restrictions on a woman's right to choose in those states since 2011 more than 100 and in 2014 at least another dozen of these have been enacted talking about harassment of health care providers and regulations that apply with no other medical services that do nothing to approve a woman's health and are more likely to harm them. they are designed to shut doors of vital health care providers for ever and that purpose has been fulfilled across the country as the availability of services has been restricted.

these regulations are in the fact a share rating and one of the purposes i see is to remove the respectability to show many of them are irresponsible and reprehensible under the guise to protect women's health care they actually in danger it. i want to thank our witnesses and my fellow members for making this hearing have been they may disagree but i know that we will have a very enlightening and engaging hearing and i will turn choose the of ranking members senator grassley. >> thank-you to our colleagues that are here as well as the senator from wisconsin and also to the panel. four and a half years ago a woman walked into an

abortion clinic with expectations she would have her pregnancy terminated and walked out without major side effects. 41 years old, 19 weeks pregnant she had three children and was a grandmother she and her daughter entered but she never left alive. she was one of many victims. operating a clinic in west philadelphia for four days and made a living by performing abortions that no other doctor should never do. the grand jury report stated "the approach was simple keep expenses low and break the law.

caving into the competitive advantage and also to the grand jury report running a baby house that smelled of pet urine and blankets were stained with blood items were not sterilized and medical equipment was broken to provide the same day service and was constantly ignored the bigger the baby the bigger the charged ultrasounds were performed so the government would never know how old the aborted babies were they could be born alive and killed after a briefing on their own by sticking baby's neck. these were a live briefing squirming baby as he did not care about the well-being of these babies or the health of women because he disliked the moaning and groaning

they were put under that best practice and disregard for the ball led to the deaths of two women including the one i already mentioned. pennsylvania has a law against abortions after 24 weeks and has a common sense law that says women should receive counseling about abortion procedures and wait 24 hours after the first visit in order to fully consider the decisions they are about to make. it is true although he ignored them what it could have saved lives and women from horrible life-threatening procedures to save babies. is the bill we are discussing today were to become law pennsylvania law would be invalidated abortion providers would not be allowed to counsel patients were given 24 hours

to consider what they were about to do and more importantly lead to inhumane and sanitary and unsafe abortions the lot of help to convict him would be wiped away. this proposed legislation is the attempt to override president by severely restricting the of states to regulate abortion and those such as planning regulations and privileges and requirements with regulations on abortion with the abortion did inducing drugs ultrasound requirements and selection bands and limitations on the use of state funding and facilities. my home state of iowa has laws on the books to protect the women and for example,

an iowa law states when inducing an abortion by providing the drug a physician must be physically present with the woman at the time the drug is provided that was enacted to make sure women were not taking abortion inducing drugs via web cam then be far away from a medical provider. we also have a lot of the books and the law says the individual who may lawfully perform to participate in medical procedures to results in the abortion would not be required to perform or a sister or participate in procedures and shall not discriminate against any individual in any way to transferring licensing education or hospital privileges because

of the individuals participation or refusal to participate in the abortion procedure in die welt like many others to make sure they are done safely and keeping from killing babies of their own religious beliefs. that would allow abortion providers to set standards of care with no oversight from the state and allow them to determine what life is viable that there are some standards across the country. the bill would invalidates the laws enacted by 10 states since 21 and children are capable to experience pain had 20 weeks of fetal age and prohibits the abortion after that point.

if the bill were to be signed into law the government would protect patients to regulate the health and welfare of citizens is not one of the tenth amendment rights and to nullify those losses this is a political opportunity before the midterm election in using the issue to appear compassionate and concerned about women's rights when in reality it disregards common-sense laws enacted in various states to protect women across the country to stop murders a large majority of americans support strong abortion restrictions that this bill would overturn it will not become law because the american people will not support it and i think the

witnesses once again. >> we will now hear from our colleagues and my thanks to the congresswoman who has come to you join us. >> thank you chairman plymouth all and members of the committee for this opportunity i encouraged with the constructive conversation on this issue for the opportunity to share my work on the women's health protection act and also like to recognize the advocacy of my wisconsin's state representative chris taylor who is here today on the second panel to share her experience in wisconsin and i thank her for her testimony today. expecting to have access to high quality dependable health care when day and their families needed to

with improved health care the entire health care system to expand the options so all patients have a health care that meets their needs but unfortunately for women this access comes under attack under the last 40 years politicians have been increasingly chipping of way that constitutional rights guaranteed under roe v wade that women have their own personal health care decisions to have access to the goal care and since that land mark decision since the highest court to ministates have tried to turn back the clock with quality care and in just the past three years enacting a total of 205 provisions that would

restrict women's access to safe abortion services 13 states this year have been working to erode women's freedom and have already adopted 21 new restrictions designed to limit access to abortion. in my home state of wisconsin we are now ranked as one of the worst dates when it comes to women's reproductive rights things to the restrictive measures enacted by eric governor and legislature last year the governor signed a measure for women that were already required by the law to make two separate trips to the clinic to undergo the ultrasound 24 hours before receiving abortion care that same law as un necessary privileges at a local hospital if not for a federal judge temporarily

blocking the position to of the four abortion clinics would have been forced to shut the doors and others would be forced to reduce services leaving many out in the cold but with an and the family should not have to rely on the decision to make the decisions for themselves and their families. recently heard from another in wisconsin that was not so lucky when she found out her baby had severe fetal anomaly that would not survive delivery she had to endure the consequences of the governor's new bobby for the federal court judge one deposition and had to undergo emergency termination and the clinic in milwaukee was the only place to do the procedure because the governor was set to sign though lot with

these on reasonable requirements the clinic was preparing to close its doors and would not do the procedure she and her husband were forced to find child care to travel out of state so she could receive the care she needed so in states across the country it is clear some politicians do this because they think they know better than women and their doctors so women are more than capable with their own personal medical decisions it is not the job of politicians to play doctor and dictate how they practice medicine nor is our job with them for a health decisions why i am proud to be a co-sponsor with my colleague senator blumenthal to put a stop to the

relentless attacks and we conclude by briefly describing the bill. to prohibit the laws to undermine and infringe on the constitutional rights under roe v wade specifically the bill would mandate the regulation that does not advance health or safety the legislation also protects by invalidating measures to make services more difficult to access and restrictions that are not imposed on any other medical procedures. and for enforcing every rights guaranteed by the constitution throughout history with the states pass laws to make it harder or even impossible to exercise the rights we have necessarily step dan with

the health protection act will ensure every woman a matter where she lives will have access to safe quality reproductive health care without interference from politicians and i thank you for your time. >>. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i am privileged to have the honor to serve on behalf of the tennessee sixth congressional district bridal my a career brodie a registered near landers starting as the emergency room nurse and then with the a patient surgery team. and after poor public policy

and more importantly the unfortunate outcomes for my patients and today i am here to share with you as the mother and a colleague and vendors my grave concern with the chairman legislation. this bill would nullify to declare unlawful any level of the government whether federal or state or local this seems to be the and do pork -- burden the legislation would overturn the majority of state laws regulating abortions has sanders they're unlike any other medical procedure does not affect the mother but the child takes the life of the unborn child in the process imposes medical risks to the mother.

and unapologetically pro-life that davis to everything in our power to protect any woman who was to have an abortion even though i may disagree with their choice. after having complications with the abortion a woman was in a clinic that was not regulated properly. there was no answer at the after hours number that she called. there was nothing that i or the doctors could do to save her life since she lost her life her life could have been saved with proper regulation in place to protect her health and well-being to hold the abortionist accountable.

cervical lacerations and other injuries can occur to the cervix in at two july says likely to have the lacerations and overall it women who have had abortions have a 37% chance of preterm births with a subsequent pregnancies and also a 50% increase of placental hypatia and 18 percent more likely to develop breast 12% with a family history of breast cancer this jumps at 80%. they not only pose serious physical risks but also mental health as well. after having an abortion study showed 81 percent more likely to develop a

mental-health issue a 37% increase would hundred 10% increase of alcohol abuse and sadly and increase and the risk of suicide. after the horrific example even though their legal fees are dangers that must be regulated. that is why 39 states require abortions be required by a licensed physician in 26 states require clinics meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical care clinics. just as important with the nine abortion that 20 of the core the star of the six months of pregnancy confirming they can feel the pain during the abortion we're discussing a medical

procedure that and save human life. and with plan para heard vs casey to have an interest of fetal life. with a sweeping attempt to undermine dozens of measures to protect women and to the false pretense that they're safe and real i hope we can reach across party lines to see abortions for what they are is brutal to the mother and the unborn child to reference the supreme court extraction abortion with those procedures is gruesome as a partial birth this procedure is the most common in the second trimester of pregnancy when they're torn

apart limb by limb and considering this with many health care risks i strongly urge you to reconsider advancing the senate bill 1696 and any effort to undermine current law that protects the health of women and unborn children with dash children at federal, state, and local level thank you for the opportunity to be here today and i yield back. >> thank you chairman and committee members for the opportunity to testify today. every woman to have access to comprehensive health care coverage that protects her right to choose there should be the case regardless of income or the type of insurance or the state she resides in to make personal health decisions based on what is best for her and her family.

we are witnessing an alarming moment in time of the reproductive rights are intensifying with roe v wade opponents of reproductive freedom are trying to undermine the constitutional right to make it difficult to access to legal abortion. they tried to take us back to a time before roe v wade when 1.2 million women resorted to illegal abortions each year talking about unlicensed doctors with unsanitary conditions that lead to infections and hemorrhages and at times death at a time when many women do that hazards this was their only option. the new trend is to shut down abortion services state-by-state.

this is happening all across the country is their signed into law that single out abortion services between 2011 and 2013 more than two dozen states passed over 200 restrictions to block access to abortion services this translates to more restrictions placed on women health care in three years than with the entire proceeding decade. the women's constitutional right now depends on her address. women in california now to those rights differ from texas or mississippi. according to one is to to 56 percent of women 56 percent now with in a state that is hostile to abortion. these laws range from mandatory waiting periods to buy as counseling to the exact size requirements for

the offices of which the procedure is to take place of a recent law in texas requires doctors to perform procedures to have former admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinical on with other senseless requirements we see the effects and clinics began to close their doors so women in texas have longer wait, higher cost and canceled appointments some have to travel over 150 miles to get to the nearest clinic these obstacles have put women in desperate circumstances than some of which may endanger their lives. we need laws that put women's health and safety first not politics that is why reintroduced the women's health protection act to congress recognize about the ability to access it the

right to abortion is meaningless. those that are get abortion services to shut down across the country the bill would outlaw state mandated medical procedures such as a forced ultrasound and other onerous laws. simply put this bill would end discrimination against abortion access for women based on there is a. i am so proud to be the lead sponsor of this bill and to partner with senators limassol and others to push as hard as we can on this bill we already have 124 co-sponsors of the house. constitutional rights should never be subject to the personal whims or believes nor should the safety of mothers of daughters and sisters or wives be jeopardized in the process.

thank you for the opportunity to testify and thank you for holding this important hearing to discuss how we can protect the health and safety and rights of all women. >> thank you representative. representative blackburn? >> we appreciate the opportunity to address you all and thank you for the invitation. it is fair to say everyone of us at the table want what is best for women. we differ on what that is and how to get there and i am very appreciative of the opportunity to be here and talk with you about this legislation the women's health protection act. in my opinion it is something that is extraordinarily broad, loosely written and through sub wide ranging words would substitute the special interest of the

abortion industry for the well-being of women and the value of human life. the legislation would jeopardize an nullify hundreds of lives as has previously been mentioned at this table to protect both mothers and they're unborn children and among my concerns with the bill senator grassley said it would be impossible to limit abortions based on the sex of the child and put a double pressure on women who were often forced by pressures to exercise male bias to eliminate a female child. this legislation sets a dangerous precedent because it places on constitutional limits on the state's ability to ensure the safety

of medical facilities abortions are indeed in invasive medical procedures and should be regulated by the state's as such a. in addition, many of your constituents see the body is out of touch with the consensus opinion in this country. public opinion polls show that the american people support limits on abortion. 60 percent of americans believe abortion should not be permitted in the second trimester and the overwhelming 80 percent believe it should never have been in the third. women hold these conditions at a higher percentage van minh and it is no wonder it is their life and we bear the burden when public policy fails to support women in the critical hour the committee would be well apprised to consider how

well this bill goes to of uprooting existing and rising consensus. 1696 conscious exemptions have existed since the abortion decision that of 1973 giving periods of reflection and consideration before it is chosen even prevent us state to assure that a physician is physically present when abortion drugs are given or that all may a physician may perform a surgical abortion would make the process less safe. what the senate should be considering is the unborn child protection act passed in 17, 2014 on a bipartisan vote to 28 / 196 it is the piece of legislation that is supported by the american

people, based in science and filled with compassion it limits abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy except in the instances of rape or incest or to protect the life of the mother we only have about one of seven countries to allow selective abortion to determine and this legislation would take one small vital step to move us closer to international norms. of paul and also "the washington post" and having to post have shown a strong majority of people support living the abortion after the 20th week. and that women supported 20 weeks limits an even greater numbers than men 60% vs. 20% when they give you an example. you all have the exhibit for

me and i want to show you this. this is the 3d ultrasound of my grandson made on march 11, 2009 before his birth on june 12th of 2009. this is the wonder of science and i have to tell you how exciting it was for me to see this ultrasound. i was thrilled. i could tell i could tell before he was born, three months before he had my eyes and nose and for a grandmother that is a really big deal. i concede his hands and his arms and i could see him peacefully resting in his mother's well. that is the wonder of science.

our constitution does not put a qualifier on life. the pursuits of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", even in the mother's womb. i a great urge you to reconsider this legislation we have heard the horrors of the trial the abortionist to read of the ghastly so-called clinic and was tried and convicted for the crimes and said tests that he caused yes legislation you are considering it could be used to validate the act to please him behind bars and invalidate the bipartisan legislation put in place i find it curious

it is termed the women's health protection act and in my opinion it would be more accurately titled the removal of existing protections and safety measures for women undergoing abortions act. i encourage you to reconsider your legislation and take up the unborn child protection act and to be more in line with the consensus of americans and the states to make certain abortion is safe and legal and rare. i really -- i yield back the balance of my time. >> we will move to the next being here this morning for your testimony. [inaudible conversations]

>> telecast you to stand to swear in the witnesses if you will please rise to affirm the testimony were about to give is the truth soldiers nothing but the truth so help you god? the q. let me introduce our witnesses before they give testimony starting with

nancy who is the president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights working as a constitutional litigator before her appointment has center for reproductive rights of coble human-rights organization that has documented cases before federal and state courts and human-rights bodies and as ben women's rights advocates and an obstetrician gynecologist from north carolina and affiliated with multiple hospitals in the area including to cantor of veterans affairs and one of 250 doctors and one of five at the veterans affairs center that specialize in obstetrics and gynecology.

our third witness has overturned years of experience providing comprehensive medical care and is board certified and trained to preventive medicine with the cdc and currently provides care for women in alabama and mississippi. and also president of the national right-to-life movement has held various positions at the right to life committee since 1991. representative taylor represents district in wisconsin and has a long history of working with the state legislature prior to her election in 2011 when she led the state and local coalitions around the state of wisconsin and we welcome you all and 84 being here this morning.

nancy? >>. >> thank-you for having us here today. i am president and ceo of women's production rights to day the right to make for ourselves the decisions of our lives is under assault over a vast part of the nation over 200 state laws have passed to make it harder or impossible for women to access to abortion services in their community we're not blocked by courts it is shutting down clinics closing of the essential services to harm women. this is the newest tactic in the for a decade campaign to deprive women of the promise of roe v wade during the four decades of physical attacks, clinics bombed and

vandalized and clinic workers murdered and blockaded. 25 years ago i locked arms with members of my church with concerned citizens to have a human chain of protection as hundreds of operation rescue protesters descended intent that this scene was played out over and over again and then taken in 1984 with congress's passage. today's women's access to abortion services is brought to an avalanche of protection laws designed to accomplish what could not be accomplished through force providing reproductive health care to women of this country and at an alarming rate passing laws singling

providers with those designed to regulate out of practice under the pretense of health and safety. as enacting such of of the state senator put it plainly there is only one abortion clinic in mississippi i hope this measure shots that down. right now mississippis seoul clinic is holding on by a virtue of a temporary court order. the true purpose is evident abortion is one of the safest medical procedures and singled out for a burdensome restriction not placed on comparable medical procedures. for example, obstetricians' to perform mr. carriage completions are not subject to these requirements despite the fact they are performing virtually the same medical procedure as day abortion provider.

the ama and american college of obstetricians and gynecologists have gone on record with these laws it you have testimony before you today courts have found standards that serve no purpose other than to end a pregnancy when year ago texas past us sweeping set of restrictions that at least one-third of the clinics have been forced to stop providing abortion care there is no clinical left in the rio grande valley the impoverished area with over 1.3 million residents. of the final requirements is allowed to go into effect in september the number of climate -- clinics will plummet to less than 10 to serve a sprawling state of 260,000 square miles. even before this lot a study

shows the 7 percent of women reported attempts to self aboard before seeking medical care now going into mexico to buy the miscarriage inducing drugs off the shelf and needing emergency care back in texas. i come to the issue of abortion rights with my own set of life experiences and personal commitments and religious beliefs progress the supreme court noted 20 years ago men and women of good conscience can disagree and probably always will of the implications of ending a pregnancy. so as to reaffirm the basic tenets of roe v wade that core reminded us of is the promise of the constitution there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. the most fundamental decisions about our reproductive health and

lives are to make and not the government. one of three women make that decision at some point in her life to end a pregnancy has the right choice for her. that decision is based on individual circumstances circumstances, health and life. none of us walked in her shoes are no the factors that lead to her decision and when a woman makes that decision she needs good save reliable care from a provider she stressed the or the committee that she calls home but today the ability to do so depends on the state in which she happens to live like 20 years ago congress needs to take action to assure the constitutional rights and the ability is not taken from them. thank you. >> it is an honor which --

to be here today senator. i am on the faculty of the duke university medical school also a clinical researcher practicing gynecologist and obstetrician and the law could be interpreted any laws that put restrictions on regulations of the abortion headed major health care providers to prohibit the future enactment by such laws and the purpose is to protect women's health by ensuring services will continue to be available. but with the stated purpose of of bill but their assumptions that abortion is good and safe for women and the restrictions are medically unwarranted and number three access to abortions are important to women's health than the state has an interest to

protect them and i will address each of these. the cdc says it is performed by license condition intended to do terminate the suspected pregnancy to give a nonviable fetus said any gestational age and the supreme court said it is different from other procedures because no other procedure and a life and the abortion decision has implications far brighter than those associated with other medical treatments. assumption number one with though ditcher that indicates induced abortion gives the harm to women is very safe as early gestational ages but a steady from finland 42,000 women of mortality rate was

14.1 but approximate 20% of the women in this study underwent a severe adverse events such as coverage or infection and then others were done for these women. the statistics if they were extrapolated to the united states as 250,000 adverse events per year. further research has demonstrated the proportion graded -- reform great then 21 weeks is greater than lower gestational ages. however because of problems with the denominator of the study the results cannot be easily extrapolated but the point is laid abortion carries 77 times increased

risk for mortality compared to earlier abortion and that is a significant issue it is mortality not morbidity. it is death. and as we have heard earlier it also increases the risk of preterm births also mental health problems following. these include anxiety and depression. assumption of virtue is restrictions are medically unwarranted. states have a compelling interest to protect the health of their citizens and have the authority to do so within their regulatory framework with the medical boards and departments of health they have regulated procedures by regulating standards for training to protect patients from injury and death the fact is the patient interaction does not occur within a fact him the issue if they have access is

a two sided issue because access to care can be inadequate to or performed by incompetent practitioners or have access to good care. ninnies of codes patients have access that is inadequate to endanger their health. of this bill would not protect the rights of patients because it regulates the practice of medicine. in addition the scope of practice is carefully defined. recently there have been a tense by mid-level practitioners in several states to assume the role to provide abortions but again with the ability of states to monitor and supervise medicine through abortion.

one of the questions that comes up with these discussions with improved regulation including a the monitoring of that access to clinics sova personnel can enter buildings is the fear from complying with the of lot as to protect the health of patients in the health with practitioners as well to provide a deeper preconditions what is the biggest fear in this circumstance? what extent are we willing to surrender state's ability to regulate? . .

this bill does not take into account these scientific advances because it removes the abortions in the stations. 1696 as a measure that seeks to restrictions on abortion in the courts and ignores only the widely supported policies that scientific evidence and prior supreme court rulings pregnant women and their unborn children. all access is not equal into zip codes do matter because we want patients zip codes to provide. my name is doctor willie parker and i'm here to offer testimony in support of the women's health protection act.

i've devoted my whole career helping women have the families they want by providing them with prenatal care and delivery of babies as well as providing them with sex education, contraception and with the need. the wall that is medically unnecessary they would deny women access to abortion. on top of this the state also has mandated the delay is that of a constantly to the women seeking this care. the thing that should determine the care of the woman conceives should be determined by medical evidence and monthly herseth

code. there are far too many that are far to many as the city and abject poverty. these realities conference everyone whether she has a undesired pregnancy or want to believe that we flawed one. i knew i consider to be the decision to provide abortion care in this state. now invariably given the climate around a portion of the country for the people regarding the decision and most frequently

asked question is why do we do this. the short answer is because if i don't, who is going to do it? if women in mississippi and the states surrounding can find a way to travel in rural areas under hostile circumstances. as i think that the work i do one of the first patients i took care of who is a 35-year-old pregnant woman the youngest of whom had died the year before with cancer. this woman found herself with an unplanned pregnancy and confided at this point in her life she couldn't care for another title economically or emotionally. she already traveled in extensive distance to come to the mandated counseling that she was to receive and while she was completely resolute when she walked in the door and do what was best for her family she was

required to be the lead in her decision for political reasons that have nothing to do with her or her medical care. other women i saw were returning for their procedure after having made the mandated way. other women faced this as they endure i defined the dilemma in the situation one has to make a decision between the undesirable outcomes were they all have in common is that for them is an

increasingly difficult for them to access a portion. as i said earlier people ask me why do we do it. i want this to contribute in a matter of best can. it should be the same number or where they live because the ability to live the life you imagine should not be limited by this it could. thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. i'm the president of the national right to life committee. we are a nationwide federation of 50 state affiliate right to

life organizations. we are the nations oldest and largest pro-life organization. we find the formal title of the marketing label to be highly misleading. the bill is about one thing, stripping away from elected lawmakers, the ability to provide even the most minimal protections for children at any stage of their development. the proposal is so sweeping and extreme that it would be difficult to capture its full scope in any short title. calling it the abortion without limit until the act. in its 198 1980 ruling in harrid mccray of holding the amendment the supreme court said abortion is inherently different because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.

they struggle with the issue because they see it as a conflict involving life itself. while not fully sharing our view that the unborn child should be protected in law nevertheless support the kind of small this bill would strike down. the laws that take into account what most americans recognize as a life or death decision. in contrast to the drafters of a 1696 apparently believe that any woman considering abortion must be shielded from any information that may cause her to change her mind. under a 1696 elected abortion would become the procedure that must always be facilitated, never delay the coming of her and he did it to the slightest degree. what type of the bill and validate? the list includes limits on abortions after 26 weeks past the point at which unborn shoulder and can experience pain which are supported by sizable

majorities nationwide. limiting abortion after viability among walls protecting individuals or private medical institutions from being forced to participate in abortion which about three fourths of the people support in which the great majority of the states have enacted. the law requiring that information be provided regarding alternatives to abortion which 88% of the public supported in the gallup poll. the wall providing the periods for reflection and prohibiting abortion because of the child sex which over 85% support all of these would be invalid. having failed in many cases to persuade the federal courts to strike down the law they dislike the extreme abortion advocates come to congress and demand the federal proportion statutory bulldozer be unleashed to scrape everything flat. the bill would subject any more government policy that affects

the practice of abortion indirectly to an array of sweeping legal tests designed to guarantee that almost none will survive. the general rule would be any law that specifically regulates abortion would be presumptively invalid. any law that isn't abortion specific that has the effect of the claimed effect of reducing access to the code access to abortion. it is apparent to those that crafted the bill believe where abortion is involved in media access at any stage of pregnancy is the only thing that matters. mr. chun and in a november interview with the newspaper you said as the election approaches i think the voters are going to want to know where the legislators stand on these issues but to know where every senator stands on s. 1696 would require a vote by the full senate by all means let's see where they stand but in the

spirit of pro-choice how about giving the senate each base as well. may 13 senator graham proposed an amendment under which 1695 but has 35 cosponsors would receive a vote of the full senate along with a separate vote on the capable act as 1670 which has 41 cosponsors. the unborn child protection act would protect unborn children in the six months and later with narrow exceptions. by this stag stage of developmef not sooner is abundant evidence of unborn babies will experience great pain as their arms and legs are wrenched off by force in the common second trimester dismemberment procedure known as dnc. you made it clear your opposition to the bill but you went on to say, and i quote, i am more than happy to cast a vote along with the women's

health protection act and i hope it will be considered. this issue reserves to be before this body. we agree. we challenge you and the leadership of the party to allow the american people to see where every senator stands on both of these major bills. let the american people see which bill reflects the values of each member of the united states senate. life or death for unborn children. thank you. >> thank you so much. my name is chris taylor and i'm a representative from the great state of wisconsin representing the assembly district. i appreciate the opportunity chairman blumenthal to testify strong support of the women's health protection act and i think the ranking member grassley and committee members for this opportunity today and i also want to thank my senator.

i'm also the former public policy director for planned parenthood of wisconsin. i have over a decade of monitoring come at skating for and attempting to get past good public policy on reproductive health care. there'there is a consensus in wisconsin about what wisconsin wantwisconsinonce the legislatun and it isn't abortion restrictions, it is on the critical economic issues that face our state. we have a stagnant economy in wisconsin and stagnant wages. working families are struggling. those are the issues. we have over a dozen abortion restrictions which have nothing

to do with health and safety of women and everything to do with politics. wisconsin is on the verge of becoming a state like mississippi where abortion is simply not accessible. a woman's ability to access legal abortion shouldn't be dependent on where she lives were subject to the political when of her state legislature and that's why i'm urging you to pass the women's health protection act. since we have seen a proliferation of abortion restrictions in wisconsin including restrictions on medication abortion and banning the telemedicine and requiring physicians to perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of practices and we also have the forced ultrasound bill. it's only impose on the physicians that provide abortions. i am very fortunate to serve on the host committee in the state assembly. there was no evidence or testimony presented that the status of the women's abortion

provider in any wa way enhancese health and safety of women who have abortions. there was no organization that advocated for this bill at all. the medical community vocally oppose this mandate including the economy of family physicians into the hospital association that was wisconsin association into the medical society that stated, quote, this requirement interferes with the patient physician relationship and places an unprecedented burden on the wisconsin physicians and women. the effect of the hospital admitting privileges law is going to be to shut down one of the four centers that provides abortion because the physicians at the center are ineligible for these requirements. one third of the women to seek abortions are going to have to go elsewhere. the effect is to increase waiting times at the three

remaining health-care centers. currently there are delay is to obtain an abortion in wisconsin with a closure of the clinic those would be extended eight to ten weeks. they will have to go elsewhere. a delay of the magnitude impacts all wisconsin women seeking abortion care. they relied on public transportation and cannot afford tthe uncompensated work time and travel costs. it also forces a woman seeking abortion to undergo an ultrasound 24 hours before. they describe and display the image to a woman. this is the most humiliating law that i have seen in wisconsin. it is certainly the government

at its thickest and most intrusive. women are not able to refuse in most cases what is an invasive vaginal sound. they have no ability to tailor their medical care to the unique situation of each woman or adopt the best standard of care. the medical community and wisconsin also vocally opposed this restriction. they said the mandatory performance of an ultrasound before an abortion is not an accepted medical practice the standard of care. the practice doesn't added to the quality or safety of the medical care being provided. simply put ultrasound for being used in wisconsin as political bludgeons. unfortunately my colleagues didn't listen to the wisconsin medical community. they didn't listen to their own democratic colleagues. we have a team of women in my democratic caucus. as we talked about this issue we realized we all have our own experiences that caused us to make very personal decisions about reproductive healthcare.

we have members that experienced miscarriage, stillbirths, high-risk pregnancies and sexual assault. we are just a microcosm of all of the women in wisconsin that we represent. we decided that though we might be ignored by the colleagues on the other side of the aisle we would never be silent and we decided to tell our own personal stories about why they are harmful and have nothing to do with the reality of the women's lives and experiences. it isn't my role as a legislator to dictate the decisions of my constituents. i have no business as a legislator on the medical practices to the physician who is ethically obligated to provide the best care for women and patients but i'm in the business of ensuring the people in my district of the people they represent are able to exercise the most fundamental personal decisions about their lives. as it stands with states legislating those rights we need

the wisconsin women's health protection act more than ever. wisconsin women and women throughout the country simply cannot wait. thank you. >> i'm going to ask without objection all of your statements be entered in the record along with a statement from our colleague. to begin the questioning, we have a number of our colleagues so we will try to move along as quickly as we can. ms. northrop, there've been some very dismaying claims about the brat of this proposed legislation referred to as the abortion without limits act. in fact it is never only targeted to certain kinds of bogus legislation that masquerades as health protection that is designed to prevent access to abortion services that

are constitutionally protected. so i wonder if you could speak a little bit to the limited nature of this legislation and the fact it specifically prohibits restructurings, and i'm quoting from the act they are more burdensome than those imposed on the medically comparable procedures. in other words it is medically comparable procedures as the criteria for preventing certain kinds to access. can you speak to that issue? >> thank you for that question because i think we did hear a lot this morning about the budget sweep of the law but in fact it is very targeted to what is happening right now in the country. it's very targeted to this new tactic of the last several years in which the state legislatures have been passing laws that prefer to be about health and safety but are not and that has

been shown to be decided in many ways. i would commend to everyone's reading the testimonies and for the record for today's hearing from the executive vice president and ceo of the college of obstetricians and gynecologists and of course that is the will of respect organizations to which the vast majority of ob/gyn .. in this country and in that testimony, they make quite clear and i'm quoting the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists strongly support the women's health protection act and they do so because from a scientific and medical perspective they are not warranted and i think what's really critical of the bill you pointed out is right from the start if this is something that is treating medically similar practices and procedures and services the same there is no

objection so that's the starting point. a second if there is a substantial safety basis for the regulations then it's not a law that is unwarranted. so if it is treating some of the medical procedures into similarly if it actually advances a safety basis then that school is going to stand and there are factors that courts would look at but that is what is critical if it is a true safety law and if it is not about singling out abortion provisions for the motive of shutting down the clinics then it stands. >> a member of the supposedly gave -- regulations the act specifically says what not to be affected. for example, funding or insurance or parental consent. other kinds of regulations that

are now in the books. let me ask you in terms of these regulations many have been struck down by the courts. many have been found to be unconstitutional. why a federal act that prevents the wall from being passed as a matter of statute as opposed to simply having the jurisprudential worked its way? >> we are here today because 200 of these underhanded laws have been passed and it isn't right that women should have to go to court here after year after year to get the medical services that the constitution guarantees th them. as i said at the medical association on record in many of these laws th and courts finding many of these unconstitutional it shouldn't be a charade every

year where women are under the threat of losing access to services and we need to make sure we have strong protections because what is happening right now, we talked about texas which will go down to ten clinics in september if it goes into effect. we talked about mississippi. we talked about the practice is hanging on by the court order and in the fairness of the law in mississippi the hospitals would not consider giving admitting privileges based on the medical competency and based on the opposition. or other reasons that have nothing to do with the competency of the doctors. so we need to make sure that there are strong protections we don't have this every yea year d women can binthe women can be at wherever they live that there personal prejudices and is going to be respected. >> while they are on the books they have a very practical impact on women's lives and a very restrictive impact on the people rights and very evasive

and intrusive consequence for their exercise of personal choice is the correct? >> that is absolutely correct. correct. >> let me ask you finally come on this round of questioning, the issue of admitting privileges. why are admitting privileges unnecessarily rubber lens and in many cases found to be unconstitutional? >> that is a very important question because that is one of the tactics that has been sweeping the nation and again i would commend the testimony that has been filed by the college of substitutions and gynecologists where they oppose those and it's also the case that the american medical association in a brief in the fifth circuit is one example went on the record to talk about how there is no medically bound to beat sound basis and what is i think in

person to keep in mind is -- and they talk about this in the brief -- abortion is one of the safest procedures and an example of how this underhanded tactic has closed a clinic in el paso texas, not open now because of it for 17,000 patients were seen in a clinic in te the clinic ind not one of those have to be taken to a hospital or transferred by the clinic. so these laws are unwarranted and they are unfair. and i know that many of us here disagree about the constitutional issues about abortion and the moral issues around it come about i would hope that we can agree that state which is teachers should be transparent in their laws, they shouldn't be pretending to be about one thing when they are actually about another because to do so, undermines our faith in what was law. it'it's an affair and unfair ans

undemocratic and it's unconstitutional. >> thank you very much. my time is expired. alhas expired.all of the documea reference will be made a part of the record. >> you heard me mention kermit in my statement and how he had been engaged in the enterprise to kill babies and violate the law and i think obviously violating the trust of these patients. the state laws were in place in that state but as the grand jury report says authorities didn't do inspections for the fear that it would be seen as putting barriers up to women. so my question whether this particular piece of legislation make it easier for these types of individuals to continue to operate with impunity?

>> this legislation would make it easier for them to operate. the law actually says, this legislation actually says is a provision woulif aprovision wout abortion, it would be invalid or if it would indeed access to abortion and one of the factors to help determine whether it impedes access to abortion is allowing the provider to determine and whether or not the new law were unable with impeding his ability to render services. so if abortionists like kermit would be able to practice and set up shops and we did see many of the state health departments decide after hearing and realizing they haven't don hadny kind of inspection of the clinics they went in and started doing them and they were finding some horrible tuitions and

clinics have been shut down because of that but this would save it for law is specific to abortion it is invalid, or if it would indeed access to abortion and even then from there it has to go on to whether or not the state can prove that it's going to improve access or health benefits for women and even then it would be yes the than is the punaro means possible plaques there are so many layers set up that practically any law dealing with abortion or impeding access in any way to abortion would be considered invalid. >> some states have laws on the book that would require that providertheproviders of abortioe located near the health facility in the event that medical care is needed and that would probably involve the life of a woman. some states also require abortion providers to have admitting privileges to

hospitals at first do you agree with the law and second can you elaborate on why they make sense in your expert medical opinion? the patients are told to present to the emergency room and they are not given any documentation. no one is told what was done and what the competitions were. this has happened to me in practice. why did you do this? you knew that the perforated her at the time and essentially what he told his team knew that he did it but he didn't want to send her to the emergency room and i said that his malpractice. that's not appropriate. and again his response was she started moving. i said that's your issue if she is moving during a procedure that is your issue.

you should be performing a procedure in such a way it is comfortable but to get more directly to respond to your question, i do believe that physicians should have admitting privileges because that is a part of the standard of care. if you perform a procedure on a patient or if you are caring for a patient, you need to be able to follow the complications of the procedure. that is a surgical maximum. as an ob/gyn or surgical or whatever specialty you happen to be in you need to take responsibility for the patient if they have a complication to either admit that to the hospital and care for them or arrange for the transfer to the hospital so that patients can be taken care of. transfer agreements or i are important because they provide continuity of care and this is why i believe that physicians need to have admitting privileges and need to be able to be located within the hospital so they can be managed. there are a couple issues here. admitting the privileges to

apply the practice on the part of the physicians. if that physicians cannot obtain the privileges there are reasons why you come and that's why. the peer review is generally the rule when they are applying for privileges. when physicians cannot get privileges it is most often because there are issues of competence or they have a trail in the background of malpractice event that causes their peers at the hospital to see this person isn't someone that we want to be on the medical staff. the hospital credentialing protects patients and requires if a physician has demonstrated a difference in getting specific procedures and that they are not running from medical boards were from adverse actions on behalf of the licenses. physician to physician communications improve the process of care. one of the major problems with morbidity and mortality in any surgical specialty. and a medical specialty is the handoff. it's like a baton handoff in a race if you fumble, you lose the

race i if he fumbled a handoff d medicine, patients are injured. admitting privileges allow for discipline if they are practicing outside of the scope of the practice, if the skills begin to deteriorate after time, admitting privileges provided for a regulatory framework where physicians who are in trouble or causing problems with patients can be disciplined. this is one of the reasons why i think many people in the abortion industry oppose credentialing because it exposes the fact that if they are not competent and they've had members of complications and if they have a trail of injured patients and lawsuits this is going to be exposed. finally, i think that it establishes the fact that if you cannot get privileges, you cannot meet the standards for the medical practice. finally, an important issue is

being on the hospital staff were part of a medical society implies that you are part of the medical community. if you are outside of the medical community then clearly something is wrong. there is another issue going on and i hope i've answered the question. >> i have a an articl an articls about what happens when the abortion industry is allowed to self regulate itself and i would request this be added into the permanent record. >> senator grassley has some documents he would like to add. >> i have 15 but i would mention five. the concerned women of america action committeeaction committet the female state legislators across the country, the association of american physicians surgeons and the association of pro-life obstetricians and clinical coaches and last several ob/gyn physicians including john in north carolina, stephen kelvin

in minnesota, byron told. >> all that those documents will be made a part of the record without objection. >> i represent a state that has been a leader in protecting women's health and safety and in 1970 i believe we were the first in the country to decriminalize abortion in a woman's right to choose therefore protecting the woman's right to choose and i also want to mention by mentiony background about the state senator who led the charge to provide women in hawaii the right to choose was a practicing catholic and the governor of the state of hawaii who allowed the bill, this very important bill to become the law to protect a woman's right to make that choice was a practicing catholic who went to mass every single day. in hawaii we understand the separation of church versus state.

i do agree it is a different procedure because it's foundation is a constitutional right. so in my view there should be a higa high burden that when it's such a constitutional right. you've heard about the testimony from our panel members. so i wanted to ask ms. northrop because the right to make this kind of a choice is based on a constitutional right, do you think that anti-choice law should be based on medical necessity? been absolutely come and i want to just say it again all that this bill is about is being sure that women's critical access to reproductive healthcare including services and as i said in my testimony, that is an issue for one in three women in the united states, that is women in every state, every

congressional districtcongressiy city and every town. her health care is important to her, that this bill is about making sure that because the state legislatures cannot just blatantly ban abortion which is the desire of some people that sit in them and some states have been wishing that envelope. north dakota has banned abortion as the essentially six weeks. and that is now in the court and it's been joined because it is plaintively unconstitutional. the state and its responsive briefs in the case that they basically thought roe v. wade should be overturned so they have that going on. but you also have this under handed attempt to do what they can do by the front door so it is important that you make sure that the regulation of abortion is not just about singling out abortion providers but is also based on the great medical practice and scientific so in response to even the doctor's

statement is look, without a patient's doctors who are doing outpatient surgeries need to have admitting privileges, that's fine. let that be the medical standard that is applied across the board. no objection to that -- >> i don't mean to cut you off, but i do have a question. my time is limited. doctor parker you provide abortion services in us is that even if you don't live there. i understand that you were denied hospital privileges in mississippi; is that correct >> it's great to see you again, senator. as you know i used to live in hawaii and in show a serving under your leadership. with regard to my decision to travel to mississippi to provide abortion and care is in part a response to the fact that well over 85% of women within a county there is no abortion provider and so, as i said earlier my decision to go there was based on the fact that nobody else would go that is goinif it isgoing to go.

when i made the decision, the regulations changed in the state of mississippi to require a hospital privilege. i made an effort to apply to all of the hospitals in the given area, and many of the hospitals declined to evaluate my application. this, why they chose to do that, i'm not sure. but in order to meet the law, i was unable to do so because there were hospitals that simply declined to evaluate my credentials. >> i think that your experience just points out how difficult these make it for women in certain states to have access to certain kinds of health care services. ms. northup, i would imagine that these kind of restrictions would disproportionately impact of populations such as the low income women of color and immigrants women. would that be the case quite >> that is absolutely the case,

and i gave the example in my testimony that in the rio grande valley -- which is one of the poorest areas in the nation -- the clinic in talent texas that have been providing care for the one time to those residents had to close. and again, it was under the circumstances where the doctors were not allowed. >> i just have one question for ms. tobias. do you believe roe v. wade should be overturned? >> yes he >> thank you. i'm sorry to the answer was yes i believe unborn children should be protected. >> thing you, senator graham? >> thank you. i want to thank you for having the hearing because i think it is an important topic and i would learn with ms. tobias's' recommendation w tobiassapostroe have a hearing on my bill which is the capable unborn child protection act 1670 and have a joint vote on the senate floor and see where everybody goes out

on us because it is a subject worthy of debate. let's see if we can find some common ground here about how these laws work. ms. tobias come is it your understanding that 1670 would permit a ban on third trimester abortions? that protect with exceptions for the life of the mother and rape and incest? >> 1670? yes. >> excuse me, the other 11696. i'm sorry. >> yes. this bill would limit or prevent the ban on abortion in the last trimester. it would prevent -- is northup, do you agree with that? >> the bill has provisions that attracts a constitutional standard that do say that those buying abilities needed to be an exception for a woman's life and health as the supreme court has said. >> so, could a state passed the

law that bans abortion in the last trimester except for the life of the mother and rape and incest your answer would be no? >> they standard would have to be that. >> what would you say ms. tobias? >> i think probably one of the best example examples would be e sponsor of the bill, jim and blumenthal was asked if the bill would ban abortions it talks about life were held and he said the health make no distinction. the exception makes no distinction between physical or psychological health. so it would be very difficult and impossible under the bill to ban abortions for help if psychology and psychological health is going to be -- >> there are 13 states -- thank you -- there are 13 states that ban elective abortions after 13 weeks except for rape and incest. would this go down?

>> you said what. >> do you agree? >> like the ninth circuit did with arizona's 20 week then yes it would be unconstitutional and this bill tracks the u.s. constitution -- >> they have waiting periods before the abortion is performed. performed. would this bill strikes a down? >> is it wit >> is it with sea view in p. action in any way it would be struck down. down. stack ms. tobias, do you agree with that? >> it depends on what the court would look at. -- >> so you don't know how that works? >> yes i do. the first question would be is this type of waiting period something -- >> the ones you are familiar with q-quebec and yowith continw with a waiting period that you think would survive? >> well, i would say that i think it's important that we look at the factors in the bill. as it applies to similar services -- >> with a waiting period requirement that you think would survive scrutiny under the spell? >> well, if it were able to say

that it did not significantly impede access to services, if it was a waiting period that is not a particularly long one. >> so you can't give an example. ms. tobias, does the bill then statestates requirements that rn exercise their conscience and not that of performing an abortion; there are laws on the books of? >> yes. if someone says according to their conscience they cannot take the life of an onboard title that would be impeding or reducing access to abortion shall be -- >> the legislation would invalidate those walls? >> yes. i don't agree it doesn't address the issue of conscience objection. >> should this? would you accept an amendment offered by me to make sure people with a conscience don't have to do something like this? >> well, i think we have important laws that are on the books that respect peoples rights of conscience and so i don't -- >> on this issue with you and tv to accept agive you to accept at by amy to exempt conscience?

>> well, i not elected to make those decisions. i think the bill clearly doesn't cover that. >> sure enough. i think the answer would be no. so, doctor parker, is it standard medical practice for physicians operating on a child that 20 weeks to apply anesthesia to the child? >> well, senator i. am not well-versed in fetal surgery because most surgeries at 20 weeks to ocher in utero. >> it would. are you familiar with the care? >> when people surgery is done -- and i very well aware of the landscape -- initially went fetal surgery is being done, the fetuses react very strongly to institutions and placement of catheters. >> said it is a standard medical practice to provide anesthesia when you operate on a baby at 20

weeks? >> yes. >> medical encyclopedias -- invites are a -- encourage parents to talk with the bbf 20 weeks. they can hear sounds coming react to your voice coming your heart beat high they can hear your stomach growling and they can react to loud noises. does that make sense to you ms. chireau? >> yes it does. >> has anyone ever been born at 20 weeks that survive? >> as far as i'm aware, no. stack not to my knowledge. >> i can show you twins. thanks. >> senator hatch. >> thank you mr. chairman. the congress has a few times told states they have to pass certain legislation. but on the condition of receiving federal funds of some kind. now, i'm in my 38th year here in the united senate. and on this committee, i don't recall congress ever passing a law that prohibited states from

enacting entire categories of walls simply because congress said so. i don't recall that. can anyone on this panel gives me an example of that; and if not, why is abortion so unique that congress has this authority in this area but not in any other? does anybody care to take a crack at that? i don't see it personally. let me ask a question to you, ms. chirea tobias. states have been passing laws on abortion for 13 years. the supreme court took over in the rubthe rue v. wade decisiond since 1973, the united states have had the most permissive abortion laws in the world today that most americans have always imposed most abortions of the vast majority of americans that support reasonable and common sense abortion regulations. at least that's been my

experience. and i don't think it is a false experience. this bill attempts to wipe it all out to eliminate even minimal regulations that most americans support into the visiting court has already said is constitutional. now i opposed this kind of legislation more than 20 years ago when i was the ranking member of what is considered today the help committee. this bill would not regulate abortion. it would regulate the states telling them what laws they may or may not pass. how did congress have the authority to do that? >> i think that it would be -- currently the law other than the supreme court will or will not allow -- has the state legislatures elected by the peoplpeople setting the laws for their states. i think that's actually a very good way to handle this. the states have been the linguist the conscience clause

-- dealing with the conscience clause and the waste provisions and the courts have been allowing visas to stan these tws with difficult to say that the law that the court has upheld is unconstitutional. so, we certainly think the congress would be overstepping in passing the law that would completely override a procedure that the supreme court has said is different. >> this bill would prohibit restricting abortions based on the reasons for the abortion. the way that i read the bill. neither the states nor the federal government could prohibit abortions performed because, for example, the child is a girl because the child has a disability. is that the way that you understand its? >> yes. >> doctor chireau, this bill sounds like it is differential to medical judgment and abortion should be treated like any other medical procedure. but under this bill,

politicians, lawyers and judges to make final decisions on such, such as which medical procedure, which medical procedures are, quote, comparable. which tasks doctors may delegate to other personnel, which drugs may be dispensed, which medical services may be provided through telemedicine, how many visits to a medical facility or necessary, the relative safety of abortion services, which methods advance the safety of abortion or the health of women more or less than others. from your perspective as a doctor, doesn't this bill actually compromise the practice of medicine? >> i think it does compromise the practice of medicine. and i believe that is on two levels. number one, for the reasons that you have integrated. number two, because i delete the current legislation of the states to set clinic specified

access to clinics and so on and so forth is protected to the patients. so i think that it is totally a problem. number one, for those reasons that you've listed and also because the regulations that have been enacted were enacted in an attempt to prevent abortion providers from being exempt from the same sorts of bigotry frameworks that other medical practitioners have to te with. >> this bill would prohibit a search in some abortions are also not imposed on what it calls medically comparable procedures. now that is just one of the key terms in this bill that are brand-new and completely undefined. but this bill makes a pretty clear statement that there is nothing unique about abortion, the thing that makes it different from any other medical procedure. and that, of course, is not true. >> that's correct. >> pro- abortion or antiabortion. even in roe v. wade, the supreme

court said the united states has unique reason for restricting abortion because it involves witwhat the court calls potentil human life. and inherits versus mcrae they held that the abortion, quote them is inherently different from other medical procedures because the weather procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life, "-end-double-quote. i don't think that we need the supreme court to tell us that. but there is. doesn't that settle this question and completely undercuts the entire theory behind this the? >> yes i think it does. and the issue of comparable procedures is false. ideally that abortion is a unique procedure. as you've said, it is the only procedure that terminates a human life and in addition from the technical perspective, and abortion is a very different procedure from say completing a miscarriage were doing a violation on and on nonpregnant women. >> can i ask just a couple more

questions? >> we are approaching a vote and that senator cruz is here. >> let me ask one more. the supreme court created one set of rules in 1973 for evaluating the constitutionality of abortion regulations. then the court changed the rules in 1992. now, this creates yet another standard prohibiting regulations so the state cannot show by the convincing evidence significantly advanced the safety of abortions. now it's bad enough the supreme court sometimes does congress job. but here is the congress attempting to turn around and do the courts job. the federal regulations in the past into the present and in the future. does this mean for example the states would be required to

reveal any law or regulations other than the books that do meet these new moves. with respect to abortion it creates abortion as a special protected class of procedure and as a special protected class of providers. >> well, i can't imagine why any state legislature would support this. no matter the position on abortion. i am having trouble here with this approach. but at least i want to raise these issues because i think they are important issues. >> sorry to impose on senator lee. >> senator lee was here earlier so i'm going to call on him at this point. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you mr. chairman and

and all of you for joining us today. >> there was a time with the humanities of an unborn child to plausibly be dismissed as philosophical conjecture. today we know it is a biological fact for every x-rated announcement, every baby shower, every ultrasound image posted on facebook all of this attests to this scientifically confirmed very deep human truth. the only difference is that unborn boys and girls are small and helpless and mute and if he cannot speak for themselves. they rely on strangers. they rely on us to speak for them. iab lead in the innate dignity of every human life and i believe every human society is rightly judged by how it treats

its most formidable members of the sick, disabled the disablede abused, the homeless, the widowed and the orphaned by the pregnant mother in crisis and of course the unborn child in the womb. neither our society at large for our laws have to put the vulnerable one against another. we can choose. instead, we have the power to choose instead. to welcome and to love and to protect all come even and especially the weakest among us. making that choice presents an enormous challenge to all of us as policymakers come as citizens and as neighbors and friends, as parents and children ourselves. but the challenge of life is come after all, why we are here. to use our strength and defense of the week.

we should choose to embrace the challenge and to do so with love and open arms. we can choose life. and when this debate finally one day ends, i think we will. i think we will choose life. so let me start with a couple of questions for his tobias if i might. at a rudimentary level, does s. 1696 even consider the possibility that there might be more than one life at stake when a woman has an abortion? >> no it does not. spirit and if the proposed legislation would have far reaching effects potentially not just for one life but for two in any given instances is that right? >> for every abortion performed there is a human life that is

destroyed. this bill doesn't mention it, treating the child has a tumor instead. >> so in that respect it's very different than other legislations that might affect one person that might just affect one person this one involves the one potential. >> many medical experts and health providers have strong ethical concerns they have every right with providing abortions. they would have the federal government telling the states that they may not protect the rights of conscience of medical providers. my own state for example guarantees the right of a

medical provider to refuse and to participate or to treat for an abortion based on moral or religious grounds. these laws matter. notwithstanding and against serial and religious objections. so let me just ask what role does the freedom of conscience law turned the play and what effect would this bill have on those walls and what concerns should we have and what you have with such an outcome? >> a lot of people go into the medical field because they want to take care of people. they go into obstinate jerks and gynecology and become a delivery room nurse because they want to take care of pregnant women and

babies. if they are told they do not want to kill unborn children if they are told that they have no choice that they will have to perform or participate in the performance of an abortion procedure they will either be doing something that is very strongly and deeply offensive to them or they will leave the field which means we would have a lot of wonderful doctors and nurses that could be helping pregnant women and their children finding something else completely false to. so i think i would actually be a huge detriment to the medical community. >> and this bill with stripped-down conscience laws because they would impede or reduce access to abortion. ..