it should be the same for all women no matter where they live because of the ability to live the life you've imagined should

not be limited by your zip code. thank you. >> thank you, doctor parker. ms. tobias. >> mr. chairman, senator grassley and members, thank you for giving me this opportunity to buy. i am carol tobias, president of national right to life committee. we are the nations oldest and largest pro-life organization. we find the formal title or marketing label women's health protection act to be highly misleading. the bill is really about just one thing, stripping away from elected lawmakers the ability to provide even the most minimal protection for unborn 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 limits until birth act would be more in line with truth in

advertising standards. in its 1980 ruling in harris v. mcrae upholding the amendment at the u.s. supreme court said, abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves a purposeful termination of a potential life. even many americans identify as pro-choice struggle with the abortion issue because they see it as a conflict involving life itself. many while not fully share in our view that the unborn child should be directly protected in law, nevertheless support the kinds of laws this bill would strike down. laws that take into account what most americans recognize as the life or death decision. in contrast, the drafters of 1696 apparently believe that any woman considering abortion must be shielded from any information that may cause her to change her mind.

under s. 1696, elected abortion will become the procedure that must always be facilitated, never delayed, never impeded to the slightest degree. what types of laws with the bill invalidate? the list includes limits on abortions after 20 weeks, past the point which unfortunately can experience pain which are supported by sizable majorities nationwide. laws limiting abortion after viability, laws 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 states have enacted. laws requiring that information be provided regarding alternatives to abortion, which 80% of the public supported in a gallup poll. laws providing periods for reflection. laws preventing abortion because of the child's sex, which over 85% support, all these would be invalid.

having failed in many cases to persuade the federal court to strike down the laws they dislike, and extreme abortion advocates now come to congress and demand that the federal prohibition statutory bulldozer be unleashed to the make everything flat. the subject would subject any law that affects the practice of abortion even indirectly to an array of sweeping legal tests designed to guarantee that almost none will survive. a general rule would be that any law that specifically regulates abortion would be presumptively invalid. the same would be true of any law that is not abortion specific not has the effect or claimed effect of reducing access to abortion. it is apparent those who crafted this bill believe that we're abortion is involved, immediate access to abortion at any stage of pregnancy is the only thing that matters.

mr. chairman, in a november interview with the newspaper roll call you said, as the election approaches i think the voters are going to want to know where 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. in a spirit of pro-choice, how about giving the senate a choice as well? on may 13, senator graham proposed an agreement under which s. 1696 would test 35 cosponsors would receive a vote of the full senate, along with a separate vote on the same capable unborn child protection act which has 41 cosponsors. the pain capable act born child protection act would protect unborn children in the six months and later with no exception. either stage in the development if not sooner there is abundant evidence that unborn babies will experience great pain as the arms and legs are wrenched off

by brute force. in the common second trimester dismemberment procedure known as dmv. mr. chairman, in your spots to senator graham's proposal, you made clear your opposition to be built which went on to say and i quote i am more than happy to cast a vote on it along with the women's health protection act ad hocly will be considered. this issue deserves to be before this body, in this goal. we agree. we challenge you in the leadership of the majority party to allow the american people to see where every senator stands on both of these major abortion related bills. that 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, mr. vice. ms. taylor. >> thank you so much, good morning. my name is christian and a state

representative from the great state of wisconsin represent the 76th assembly district. i so appreciate the opportunity, chairman blumenthal, to testify in strong support of the women's health protection act, and i think ranking member grassley and committee members for this opportunity today. i also want to thank my senator tammy baldwin who we are very proud of in wisconsin were leading the way in cosponsoring this important bill. i'm also the former public policy director for planned parenthood of wisconsin. i have over a decade of monitoring, advocating for, and attempting to get past good public policy on reproductive health care. there is a consensus in wisconsin about what wisconsinites want the state legislature to focus on. it is not abortion restrictions. it is on the critical economic issues that face our state. we have a stagnant economy in wisconsin. we have stagnant wages. working families are struggling. those are the issues that

wisconsinites want the state legislature to focus on, but, unfortunately, that is not been the focus over the last three years and wisconsin has become one of the many battleground states where fights over woman's ability to access abortion care are being waged. we have only a few health centers in wisconsin to provide abortions and with 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 act -- should not be dependent on where she lives or subject to the political whims of her state legislature and that is why i'm urging you to pass the women's health protection act. since 2011 we've seen a proliferation of abortion restrictions in wisconsin, including restrictions on medication abortion, and in telemedicine and requiring physicians to perform abortions

to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the practices. we have a forced older son bill. the mandate is only impose on physicians who provide abortion. i am very fortunate to serve on the health committee in the state assembly. there was no medical evidence or testimony presented at the admitting privileged status of f the women's abortion provider in any way enhanced the health and safety of women who have abortions. there was no health care provider or health care organization dedicated for this bill at all. in contrary the medical community vocally opposed this mandate, including the wisconsin academy of family physicians, the wisconsin hospital association, the wisconsin public health association and the wisconsin medical society that stated, quote, this requirement interferes with the patient-physician relationship in places and i needed an unprecedented burden on wisconsin physicians and women. the effect of the hospital

admitting privileges law is going to be to shut down, one, afford health centers that provide abortions because the physicians at the center or an eligible for these admitting requirements. that means that over one-third of the women who seek abortions are going to have to go elsewhere. the effect of that is to increase waiting times at the three remaining health centers. currently that our delays of three to four weeks to obtain an abortion in wisconsin with the closure of this clinic those delays will be extended to eight to 10 weeks. finally, we would have no health care provider providing abortions post-18 weeks, and so women who have complications are tragedies in pregnancies past 18 weeks left to go elsewhere. a delay of this magnitude clearly impacts all wisconsin women seeking abortion care but it has particular effects on low income women who rely on public transportation and cannot afford i'm competent work time and travel costs. so for poor women these

additional barriers may be insurmountable. the same law that requires admitting privileges force a woman seeking abortion to undergo an ultrasound 24 hours before the procedure. the provider must describe and display the image to the woman. this is the most humiliating and degrading law that i have seen in wisconsin. it is the government at its biggest and most intrusive. women are not able to refuse in most cases what is an invasive vaginal ultrasound. physicians have no ability to tailor the medical care to unique situation of each individual woman are atop the best standard of care. the medical committee in wisconsin vocally opposed this restriction. they said the mandatory performance of an ultrasound before an abortion is not an accepted medical practice or standard of care. this does not add to the quality or safety of medical care being provided. simply put, ultrasounds are being used in the scotsman as

political bludgeons. unfortunately, my republican colleagues didn't listen to the wisconsin medical community. they didn't listen to the own democratic colleagues. we have 18 women in my democratic caucus. as we talked about this issue prior to debate, we realize we all had our own experiences that cause us to make very personal decisions about reproductive health care. we have members who have expensed pregnancy loss, miscarriage, stillbirth, high-risk pregnancy, and sexual assaults. we are just a microcosm all the women in wisconsin who we represent the we decided that we might be ignored our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we would never be silent, and we decided to tell our own personal stories about why these laws are so harmful to women and have nothing to do with the reality of women's lives and experiences. it is not my role to dictate the most personal privacy decisions of my constituents. i have no business as a legislator to support medical

practices is ethically obligated to provide the best care for women. but eminem business of insuring people in my district, the people i represent able to exercise their most fundamental personal decisions about their lives. as it stands with the states legislating away those rights, we need the wisconsin women's health protection act more than ever. wisconsin women and women throughout this country simply cannot wait. thank you. >> thank you very much to all of her with his. i'm going to ask without objection that all of your full statements be ended in the record along with a statement from our colleague, senator feinstein. and to begin the questioning, we have a number of our colleagues. we have votes and an so will tro move along as quickly as we can. ms. northup, there have been a very dismaying and sweeping claims about the brass this this proposed legislation ms. tobias

refer to it as the abortion without limits act. impact -- in fact it is targeting certain kinds of in effect about this legislation, legislation that masquerades as health protection but really 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, the fact, for example, it specifically prohibits restrictions -- and i'm quoting from the act -- that are more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures. in other words, its access to medically comparable procedures as the criteria for preventing certain kinds of bars to access to abortion services. could you speak to that issue? >> yes.

thank you for the question because i think we did hear a lot this morning about the alleged sweep of the law but, in fact, it is very targeted to what's happening right now in the country. it's very targeted to this new tactic of the last several years in which state legislatures have been passing laws that purport to be about health and safety, but are not. and that has been shown to be defined in many ways. i would commend it to everyone's reading the testimonies submitted for the record for today's hearing from the executive vice president and ceo of the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists. and that, of course, is the well-respected organization to which the vast majority of the ob/gyn belong in this country. and in that testimony they make quite clear, and i'm quoting, the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists strongly support as 1696 the women's health protection act. and they do so because from a

scientific and medical perspective, these laws are not awarded. and i think what's really critical about the bill which 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's no objection, nothing is going to be struck. so that's the starting point. secondly, if there is a substantial safety basis for the regulations, then it's not a law that is unwarranted. that law will stand. so if it is treating similar medical procedure similarly, if it actually advances a safety basis, then that law is going to stand. i think that's important and there are factors courts would look at in that but that's what is critical. if it's a true safety law, if it's not about singling out abortion provisions for the motive of shutting down clinics, then that law stands. >> a number of the supposed

regulations that have been claimed to be struck down by this legislation, the act specifically said would not 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 these laws are being passed as a matter of statute, as opposed to simply having the jurisprudential root work its way? >> welcome we are here today because as i said, 200 of these underhanded laws have been passed. and it is not right that women should have to go to court year

after year after year to get the medical services that the constitution guarantees them. so i think it's important that it be made clear what kind of is already on record, as i said, the american medical association on record against many of these laws, courts finding many of these laws unconstitutional. it shouldn't be a charade every year where women are under threat of losing access to services. and we need to make sure we have strong protections because what's happening right now, we talked about texas we took her down to 10 clinics in september if that law goes into effect. we talked about mississippi. dr. parker practices, hanging on by a court order. and the unfairness of these laws in mississippi, the hospitals would not consider giving admitting privileges, not based on medical competency, but based on their opposition. or other reasons that have nothing to do with the competence of the doctors. we need to make sure that our

strong protections, that we don't have this happen every year, and women can be assured wherever they live that their personal private decision is going to be respected. >> while they are on the books he had a very practical impact on women's lives, and they very severely restricted impact on their legal rights, and the very invasive and intrusive consequence for the exercise of personal choice, is that correct? >> that is absolutely correct. >> let me ask you finally on this round of questioning, the issue of admitting privileges. why are admitting privileges unnecessary, irrelevant, and in many instances found to be unconstitutional? >> thank you. that's a very important question because that is one of the underhanded tactics that has been sweeping the nation, and again i would commend the testimony that has been filed by

the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists where they oppose of those. it's also the case that the american medical association in a brief circuit is one example went on record to talk about how there's no medically sound basis for that requirement. and what is really i think important for us to keep in mind is, and the ama talk about this, 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 because of it, 17,000 patients were seen i in the clic in 10 years and not one of those had to be taken to a hospital or transferred by the clinic. so these laws are unwarranted and their unfair. and i know that many of us here

this agree about the constitutional issues about abortion, about the moral issues around it, but i would hope that we could agree that state legislatures should be transparent in their laws. they shouldn't pretend to be about one thing when they're actually about another. because to do so undermines our faith in the rule of all. it's unfair, undemocratic, and it's unconstitutional. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. all of the documents you reference will be made part of the record, without objection. senator grassley. >> ms. tobias, you heard me mention my opening statement, the grandeur report reconstructing how he had been engaged in the enterprise to kill babies, even violate the law. and i think obviously violate the trust of these patients. state laws were in place in that state but as a grand jury report

says, authorities didn't do inspections for fear or be seen as quote unquote putting bears up to women choosing. so my question come with this particular piece of legislature 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 that if a provision would single out abortion, it would be invalid, or if it would impede access to abortion. and one of the factors help determine whether or not it in peace access to abortion is allowed the abortion provider to determine, whether or not the new law, any law, would impede his ability to render services. so yes, abortion is like kermit would be able to continue to

practice, to set up shop. actually we did see that many of the state health department decided after hearing about him and realizing that they as well as pennsylvania had not done any kind of inspection of the clinics, wind and started doing them in finding some horrible situations and clinics have been shut down because of the but this law would say that if a law is specific to abortion, it's invalid, or it would impede access to abortion. and even then from there you have to go to whether or not the state can prove that it's going to improve access for women, health benefits for women. and even then it would be yes, then there are so many layers set up in this legislation that practically any law dealing with abortion or impeding access in any way to abortion would be considered invalid. >> dr. chireau, some states have

laws on the books that would require providers of abortion to be located near a 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. first of all, do you agree with the laws? and secondly could you elaborate on why they make sense in your expert medical opinion speaks yes. thank you for the question. all too often, and this is been my experience as a practitioner, abortion competitions occur, patients are told to present to the emergency room. they're not giving any documentation. no one is told what was done and what the complications were. this is happened to me in practice. a patient expert preparation of her uterus during abortion. had a complicated hospital

course but i called the abortionist and ask why did you do this? you knew you perforate or at the time, and they essentially what he told was that he knew that he dated but that he didn't want to send her to the emergency room. and i said that's really malpractice. it's not appropriate. and begin his your spots was, she started moving. i said that's your issue. if the patient is moving during a procedure, that is your issue. you should be performed procedures and such when it's comfortable. not to get to more directly to respond to your question, i do believe that physicians should have admitting privileges because that is part of the standard of care. if you perform a procedure on a patient, if you're caring for patient, you need to be able to follow up on the complication of the procedure. that is a surgical maximum. whatever surgical special you happen to be in, you need to take responsibility for the patient if they have the complication to either admit them to the hospital and care for them yourself or arrange for

transfer to the hospital so that the patient can be taken care. transfer agreements are very important because they provide for continuity of care. this is what i believe physicians need to have admitting privileges, and need to be able to be located within a hospital so that patients can be managed to the are a couple of issues. number one, admitting privileges apply a level of competence in clinical practice on the part of physicians. if physicians cannot obtain admitting privileges that are reasons why and that's why peer review is a generally the rule when patients are applying for privileges. when physicians cannot get privileges, it is most often because there are issues of competence, they have a trail in the background of malpractice defense that causes their peers at the hospital to say this person is not someone we want to be on the medical staff. hospital credentialing protects patients, requires a physician is limited confidence --

competence. they're not running from medical boards or adverse actions on adn behalf of the licenses the physician to physician communication improve the process of care. one of the major problems with morbidity and mortality in any surgical specialty, medical specialty is the handoff. it's like a baton handoff in a race. if he fumbled a handoff, you lose the race but if you fumbled a handoff and medicine, patients are injured. admitting privileges allow for discipline if physicians are practicing outside the scope of practice, if their skills begin to deteriorate after time, admitting privileges provide for a regulatory framework where physicians who are in trouble or causing problems with patients can be disciplined. and this is one of the reasons why i think many people in the abortion industry oppose credentialing. because it exposes the fact if they are not competent, if they

have had numbers of complications, if they have a trail of injured patients and losses, this is going to be exposed. and then finally i think that it establishes the fact that if you cannot get privileges, you cannot meet the standards for medical practice. finally, an important issue is that being on a hospital staff were being part of the medical society and plies that you are part of the medical community. if you're outside of the medical community, then clearly something is wrong. there's some issue going on. i hope i've answered your question. >> senator grassley, excusing but i have an article that talks about what happens when the abortion industry is allowed to self regulate itself. i would like to request this be added into their permanent record. >> without objection. senator grassley have some documents you would like to add. >> yeah, i have 15 different but i would just like to mention

five. concerned women of america's legislative acting committee, a group of 30 single state legislators across the country, the association of american physicians and surgeons, the american association of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists, and lastly several ob/gyn physicians including john thorpe, north carolina, steven calvin, minnesota, byron calhoun of west virginia. thank you. >> all those documents will be made a part of the record without objection. senator hirono. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i represent a state, hawaii, that has been a leader in protecting women's health and safety. and, in fact, in 1970 we were i believe the first in the country to decriminalize abortion, a woman's right to choose. and, therefore, protecting a woman's right to choose, and i also want to mention by background that 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 this bill, this very important bill to become law to protect a woman's right to make that choice was a practicing catholic who went to mass every single day. we in hawaii understand the separation of church versus state. i do agree abortion is a different procedure from other medical procedures because it's foundation is a constitutional right. so in my view there should be a high burden on laws that limit or bridge such a constitutional right. we've heard a lot of testimony from our panel members. so i wanted to ask ms. northup, 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? >> absolutely, and i want to just say again, all that this bill is about is being sure that women's critical access to reproductive health care, including abortion services, and and as i said in my testimony, that's an issue for one in three women in the united states, but women in every state, every congressional district, every city and every town. and her health care is important to her, but this bill is about making sure that because state legislatures cannot just a blatantly and abortion, which is the desire of some people who sit in them, and substantive survey been pushing that envelope, north dakota has banned abortion at essentially six weeks, and that is now in the courts, of course it's been conjoined because it is blatantly unconstitutional. the state in its briefs in the case of the basically thought roe v. wade should be overturned. so you have that going on but you also have this underhanded

attempt to do what they can't do by the front door by the backdoor. so it is important that you make sure that the regulation of abortion is not just singling out abortion providers, but is actually based on good medical practice and scientific evidence. so the response to even try and force the statement is, look, without patients doctors who are doing outpatient surgery, need to have admitting privileges, that's fine. let that be the medical standard that is applied across the board. no objection to that. this bill has nothing to say to that. >> i don't mean to cut you off but it took the question, my time is limited to dr. parker, you provide abortion services in mississippi even if you don't live there. i understand you denied hospital privileges in mississippi, is that correct. [inaudible] >> great to see you again, send it. as you know, i used to live in hawaii and enjoy -- with regard

to my decision to travel to mississippi to provide abortion care, it is in part in response to the fact that well over 85% of women living in a county where there's no abortion provider. so as i said earlier my decision to go those based on the fact that nobody else would go. when i made the decision, the regulations changed in the state of mississippi to require hospital privileges. i made an effort to apply to all of the hospitals in a given area, and many of the hospitals declined to evaluate my application. so why the chose to do that i'm not sure, but in order to meet the law, i was able, unable to do so because there were hospitals that somebody declined to evaluate my credentials, and i'm not sure what. >> i think your experience just point out how difficult these

laws make it for women in certain states to have access to certain kinds of health care services. ms. northup, i would imagine these kinds of restrictions would disproportionately impact certain populations, such as low income women, women of color and immigrant women. would that be the case? >> 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 mcallen, texas, that has been providing good care for a long time for those residents had to close. and again i it was under those circumstances where the doctors were not allowed to get their speed is i just have one question for mr.. g. believe roe v. wade should be overturned? >> yes. >> thank you. >> yes, i believe unborn children should be protected. >> thank you. senator graham.

>> thank you. thank you very much, mr. chairman but i want to thank you for having to sing because i think it's an important topic, and i would join with ms. devices recommendation that we have a hearing on my bill which is a pain capable unborn child protection act, 1670, and have a joint vote on the senate floor and see what everybody falls out on it because it's a subject worthy of debate. let's see if we can find some common ground here about how these laws work. ms. tobias, is it your understanding that 1670 would prevent a ban on third trimester abortions that protect with exceptions for the life of the mother and rape and incest? >> 1670? >> excuse me. the other one, 1696. >> the one today. >> yes, i'm sorry. >> yes, this bill would limit,

would prevent a ban on abortion in the last trimester. it would prevent -- >> ms. northup, do you agree to? >> the bill has provisions that track the constitutional standards that you say that there needs to be an exception for a woman's life and health, as the supreme court has said. >> so could a state pass a law that banned abortion in the last trimester, except for life of the mother and rape and incest? your answer would be no? >> the standard would have to be that this would bring court has recognized. >> mystifies? >> i think probably one of the best examples would be when the sponsor of the bill, chairman blumenthal, was asked if this bill would ban abortions, talks about life or health committee said that the health would make no distinction -- the exception makes no distinctive woodwind physical or psychological health. so it would be very difficult,

impossible under this bill to ban abortions for health and psychology and psychological health is going to be -- >> there are 13 states -- thank you. there are 13 states that an elective abortions after 20 weeks except in case of rape and incest in the life of the mother. with this bill strike those bills down speak with yes, it would. >> ms. northup, do you agree? >> yes, it would be unconstitutional, and this bill tracks the u.s. constitution -- >> to have waiting period required before the abortions performed. with this bill strike that those because yes. yes. it with if you beat access to abortion in any way it would be struck down. >> ms. tobias, do you agree with that? >> depends on what the court would look at. so again if we were talking -- >> you don't know how the bill would? >> yes, i do. the first question would be if this type of waiting become something of also -- >> the ones that your family

with, can you name one state law with a waiting period that you think would survive a? >> well, i with you think it's important that we look at the factors in the bill. apply to similar -- >> with a waiting could requirement that you think would survive scrutiny under this bill? >> well, if a write 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 this bill bans states requirements that a person can exercise their conscience and not that of performing an abortion. there are laws on the books that say that, right? >> yes. if someone says, according to the conscience they cannot take the life of an unborn child, that would be competing for reducing access to abortion which would not be -- which would be -- >> invalidates those laws? >> yes spent i don't agree. this doesn't address the issue

of conscious objection. >> should it? would you accept an amendment offered by me to make sure people with conscience don't have to do something like this? >> well, i think with important laws that are on the books with respect to people's rights of conscious come in so i don't -- >> on this issue would you accept an amendment by me to this bill to exempt the conscience of? >> well, i think that they'll really doesn't cover the. >> there in the. i think the answer would be no. so, dr. parker, standard medical practice for physicians operating on a child at 20 weeks to apply anesthesia to the child's? >> well, senator i'm not well-versed in fetal surgery because most surgeries at 20 weeks would have to occur in utero. >> right, it would. dr. chireau, are you someone

with and what would be the standard of care there? >> yes, it is and that's because went fetal surgery is done, and i'm very well aware of the fetal surgery landscape, initially went fetal surgery was being done, fetuses reacted very strongly to incisions to place catheter. >> so that is standard medical practice to provide anesthesia and operate on a baby at 20 weeks? >> yes. >> i'm running over, i'll wrap it up. medical encyclopedia anchorage parents to talk to the 20 weeks. the directive was, they can hear your heartbeat as a mother. they can hear your stomach growling and they can react to loud noises. does it make sense to you, transport? >> yes, it does. >> has anyone ever been born at 20 weeks that survived? >> as far as i'm aware, no. >> not to my knowledge. >> i can show you twins. thanks. >> senator hatch. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

you know, congress has a few times told states they have to pass certain legislation, but only if the condition of receiving federal funds of some kind. in my 38th year here in the united states senate, and on this committee, and i don't recall congress ever passing a law that prohibited states from enacting entire categories of law simply because congress so-so. i don't recall that. can anyone on this panel give 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 the question to you, ms. tobias. states have been passing laws regarding abortion for almost 200 years. the supreme court took over in

its roe v. wade decision in the united states has had the most permissive abortion laws in the world today. but most americans have always opposed most abortions in opposed most abortions and investment could of americans support reasonable and commonsense abortion regulations, at least that's been my experience in the don't think -- this bill attempts to wipe it all out, to eliminate even minimal regulations that most americans support and that the supreme court has already said our constitutional. i oppose this kind of legislation more than 20 years ago when i was ranking member of what is considered today the help committee. this bill would not regulate abortions. 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 it would be, currently the laws, other than what the supreme court will or will not allow, as the state legislatures elected by the people setting the laws for their states. i think that's actually a very good way to handle this. the states have been dealing with the conscience clauses, setting up the waiting periods, informed consent provisions. and the courts have been allowing these to stand. so it's difficult to say that a law that the court has upheld is unconstitutional. so we certainly think that congress would be overstepping in passing a 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 i read the bill, neither states nor the federal

government could prohibit abortions performed because, for example, a child is a girl or because the child has a disability. is that the way you understand that? >> yes. >> dr. chireau, this bill sounds like it is very deferential to medical judgment, and that abortion should be could like any other medical procedure. but under this bill, politicians, lawyers and judges would make final decisions on such things, such as which medical procedure, which medical procedures or quote comparable, unquote. 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 are necessary, the relative safety of abortion services, which methods advance this age of abortion on 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's on two levels. never won, for the reasons that you have enumerated. number two, because i do believe that current legislation in the states to set clinics specifies access to clinics and so on and so forth. is protected to patients. i think it is doubly a problem. number one, for those reasons that you listed and also because the regulations that have been enacted or enacted in an attempt to prevent abortion providers from being exempted from the same source of regular framework that other medical practitioners how to operate within. >> this would credit restrictions on abortion that are not imposed on what it calls medically comparable procedures. that is just one of the key

terms. this bill makes a pretty good statement that there is nothing unique about abortion, nothing that makes it different from any other medical procedure. and that, of course, is not true. pro-abortion or antiabortion but even in roe v. wade, the supreme court said that the state has unique reason for restricting abortion because it involves what the court calls potential human life. the supreme court in 1980 held at the abortion quote is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life, unquote. i don't think that we need the supreme court to tell us that, but there it is. doesn't that settle this question and completely undercuts the entire theory behind this bill? >> yes, i believe that it does put everything the issue of kabul procedures is really

false. i believe that abortion is a unique procedure as you said. it is the only procedure that terminates the human life. in addition from a technical perspective, and abortion is a very different procedure from completing a miscarriage or doing a violation curettage on a non-pregnant woman. >> mr. chairman, could ask -- >> sure. >> we are approaching a vote in senator cruz is here, so -- >> let me just ask one more. the supreme court created one set of rules in 1973 for evaluating the cost to shut up a portion regulation. then the court change the rules in 1982. this bill creates yet another standard compressed and revelations that a state cannot show by clear and convincing evidence significantly advanced the safety of abortions. it's backing up the supreme court sometimes does congresses job, my tears of congress

attempting to turn around and do the courts job. but it gets worse. this bill applied its rules and regulations to all states and federal statutes to all states and federal regulations in the past, in the present, and in the future. does this thing for example, that states would be required to repeal any laws or recollections already on the books that do make these new rules and? >> yes, sir. i think that's an important point that i think essentially this law gets a states' rights with respect to abortion, it creates abortion as a special protected class of procedures and abortion providers 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'm having real trouble here with this approach. but at least i wanted to raise

this issue because i think they are important issues. thank you, mr. chairman. sorry to impose on senator lee and senator speak in senator cruz, senator lee was here earlier some going to call on him at this point. thanks, senator hatch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to all of you for joining us today. there was a time with the commanding of an unborn child could possibly be dismissed as philosophical conjecture. today, we know it is a biologic fact, for every excited announcement, every baby shower, every ultrasound image posted on facebook, all of this the tests to this scientifically confirm confirmed, very deep human truth. the only difference is that unborn boys and girls are small

and they are helpless, and they are mute. they cannot speak for themselves. they rely on strangers. they rely on us to speak for them. i believe in the innate dignity of every human life, and i believe every human society is rightly judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members, the aged, the poor, the sick, the disabled, the abused in the homeless, the widowed, and the orphaned, the pregnant mother in crisis and, of course, the unborn child in the womb. neither our society at large, nor our laws have to get to 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, even and especially the weakest among us.

making that choice presents an enormous challenge to all of us as policymakers, as citizens, as neighbors and friends, as parents and children ourselves. but the challenge of life is, after all, why we are here. to use our strength in defense of the week. we should choose to embrace the challenge, and to do so with love and with 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 ms. tobias, if i might. at a rudimentary level does s. 1696 even consider the possibility that there might be even more than one life involved and at stake when a woman

seeking an abortion? >> no, it does not. >> and this proposed legislation would have far-reaching effects potentially not just for one life but for two, ma in any given instance from is a direct? >> for every abortion that is performed there is a human life that is destroyed. this bill doesn't mention it. treating a child as a tumor instead. >> in that respect it's very different than other legislation's that might just affect one person, my just affect the health of one person, this one in paul's the potential in each instance for the destruction of one person's life, complete termination. >> yes. >> many medical experts and health providers have strong moral and ethical concerns, as they have every right to have,

with providing abortions. and yet this bill as i understand it would have the federal government telling the states that day, the states, may not protect the rights of conscience or medical providers. my own state, for example, guarantees the right of a medical provider to refuse, to participate, admit our tree for an abortion based on moral or based on religious grounds. these laws matter. i can point to several instances in which absent such laws, university or hospital policies would have forced the medical personnel to perform abortions, not withstanding, and against serious moral order religious objections. so ms. tobias, let me just ask, what role do freedom of

conscience laws currently play in what effect would this bill have on those laws? and what concerned should we have, would you have with such an outcome of? >> a lot of people go into the medical field because you want to take care of people. they go into obstetrics and gynecology, they become diluted and nurses because they want to take care of pregnant women and babies. if they are told and 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 are strongly, deeply offensive to them, or they will leave the field which means would have a lot of wonderful doctors and nurses that could be helping pregnant women and their children finding something else completely, something else to do. so i think that would actually be a huge detriment to the medical community.

>> thanks spent in this bill would strike the unconscious laws because of those laws which impede or reduce access to abortion. >> thank you. thank you for you your answers. i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank each of the witnesses for coming and joining us today. the legislation this committee is considering is extreme legislation. it is a legislation designed to eliminate reasonable restrictions on abortion that states across this country have put in place. it is legislation designed to force a radical view from democrats in the senate that abortion should be universally available, common, without

limit, and paid for by the taxpayer. that is an extreme and radical view. it is a view shared by a tiny percentage of americans, although a very high percentage of activists in the democratic party who fund and provide manpower politically. and it is also a very real manifestation of a war on women, given the enormous health consequences that unlimited abortion has had damaging to health and sometimes even the lives of women. i have with me 317 statements from texas women who have been hurt by abortions, along with letters from texas opposing this bill, along with letters from pro-life doctors, nurses, lawmakers across the united

states, that with the chairman's permission i would like to have entered in the record. >> without objection. >> a number of the restrictions that this legislation would invalidate our restrictions, commonsense restrictions the vast majority of americans support. for example, restrictions on late-term abortions. the overwhelming majority of texans not want to see late-term abortions performed, except in circumstances when necessary to save the life of the mother. and yet, the united states laws in the law that would be reflected in this bill is extreme by any measure. today, the united states is one of seven countries in the world that permits abortion after 20 weeks. we are in such distinguished company as china, north korea, vietnam.

those known paragons of human rights. if you look at some other countries across the world, france, abortion is prohibited after 12 weeks. in italy abortion is prohibited after 12 and a half weeks. in spain abortion is prohibited after the first trimester. in portugal abortion is prohibited after 10 weeks. this is the norm across the world, and yet this legislation would say that the 23 states who have enacted limits on late-term abortion, their laws would be set aside. a question i would ask dr. parker. is it your view that these nations, france, italy, spain, portugal, that they are somehow extreme or manifest a hostility to the rights of women? >> thank you for your question.

i am not an international human relations expert. i can tell you that when abortion is legal and safe, that the known mortality related to women taking desperate measures when abortion is illegal is greatly minimized as demonstrate by what has happened in this country after 1973. i do know that internationally in a country like ghana where i have traveled where they have made great strides towards reducing their maternal death rate by having better access to maternal care, despite the fact that abortion is legal because it's so heavily stigmatized when women don't access vector, that the major cause of maternal mortality in common is really to unsafe abortion. so if access, legal and safe

services for a reality for women like unplanned pregnancy or -- reflects human rights values, then countries that restrict that we would have to question the commitment to the med and safety of the women in the population. >> thank you for your views, dr. parker. i would note the suggestion that somehow france or italy or spain or portugal, much of the civilized world, is somehow insensitive to the rights of women is rather extraordinary. and the idea that america would rush out to embrace china and north korea for the stand on human rights is chilling. i would note that this law would also set aside state laws prohibiting taxpayer funded abortion. 332 states have laws that do that. this law would also in peril state laws providing for parental notification if your

child needs an abortion, at a minimum before that series medical treatment, that a parent has the right to be notified. 38 states have that law and yet this bill in congress would imperil every one of those laws. and if i may, finally, if i may have another 30 seconds to just share some of the stories from women in texas. ..