contributing writer for mashable, the guardian, and he is the author of this new book, "hacking happiness: why your personal data counts and how tracking it can change the world." >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> today politico looks at the political climate heading into fall's midterm elections and the potential implications for 2016's presidential election. political consul taxes, pollsters and operates will take part of the discussion. you can see it live beginning at noon eastern here on c-span2. >> we are tracked ubiquitously, intimately and all the time.

like, i think it's easier just to assume there are very few times that we're not tracked. and by that, most people will say to me, a lot of times they'll say, you know, i read a lot for technology magazines like mashable and the guardian, and they'll say, well, it doesn't affect me because i'm not on facebook, or my grandmother's not on facebook. i say to them, look, first of all, i think the number is something like there's 45 million people whose photos are on facebook and who can be facially identified through tagging, and they may not even be on facebook. so the fact that to say like my activity and my behavior that i know about means that i'm not being tracked is, in general, factually just untrue. >> author john havens on how your personal day is tracked and used and tips on how to secure your digital footprint tonight at eight eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> recently, a georgia senate republican primary debate was held between candidates,

representative kingston and businessman david per due. the georgia primary runoff election is set for tomorrow. the winner of the runoff face off against democrat michelle nunn in november's 9/11 election. this debate is hosted by the atlanta press club. it's just under to be 30 minutes. ♪ ♪ >> moderator: good evening. i'm dennis o'hare, reporter and local host of "all things considered" on 90.1 wabe and public broadcasting atlanta. we'd like to welcome our viewers and our live studio audience to the atlanta press club debate series originating from the atlanta studios of georgia public broadcasting. this is the debate between the republican candidates for united states senate, and let's meet the candidates, and they are in alphabetical order jack kingston

who's been the u.s. representative for georgia's 1st congressional district since 1983 and david perdue, former ceo of dollar general and reebok be. and be now let's meet our panelists. bobby batista is a broadcast journalist and host of gpb's nightly news program, "on the story." ben be roberts is an anchor and executive producer for walb news 10 in albany, georgia, and eric sturgis is a staff writer for the atlanta general constitution. now tonight's debate will consist of three rounds, and if you'd like more information of the rules on the debate, just visit atlantapressclub.org. now, in the first round, each candidate will be asked one question by one of our panelists, and the candidates will have 60 seconds to answer the question. let's get started. bobbi, you have the first question for jack kingston.

>> congressman, good evening. president obama has asked for $4 billion to help care for the influx of tens of thousands of children coming across it's border from central america. local nonprofits report hundreds or more of those children are already here or are coming to georgia. do you support the president's request for a aid in principle, if not specifics? and if not, how should the country and our state be addressing the issue of these children? kingston: bobbi, i don't support his request. we have to have a policy change, and the policy has to be changed in the direction that we have with canada and mexico right now, and that is when unaccompanied alien children come to our borders from mexico or canada, they are returned home. that's not the case with these other countries. we need to have the same policy. and we also should send the national guard down to the border to secure the border. both from a security standpoint, but also from a standpoint of

helping the children in terms of making sure that they are safe, making sure that they have vaccines and so forth. but this is a policy that is a self-imposed disaster by president obama. it is pure chaos. we need to have common sense on the border, and that's why i have fought amnesty and for border security while i've been a member of congress. >> moderator: thank you, mr. kingston. ben roberts, you get the next question for david perdue. >> mr. perdue, one of your top priorities is trying to get the ballooning national debt under control which you say can be done by balancing the budget and also growing our economy which, of course, is easy to say but very difficult to do. is it realistic to think that can be done without a tax increase, and are there parts of the budget that would be off limits in your view to cuts? perdue: well, thank you. i think this is the seminal

question of this race, frankly. the debt that we have right now is the greatest threat to our national security. we've got to get serious about solving that debt crisis. it took us a long time to get here, it's going to take a little while to solve it. first of all, there are two precepts we have to do to solve this crisis. one, we've got to cut this insane spending. first of all, we have $480 billion of redundant agencies right now, and i don't see any congressman or senate really going after that. senator coburn has a book that he puts out every year, it's the closest we have, and he's coming out of the senate right now. the second thing we have to do is we really have to get this economy going. first, i think we have to have tax reform. i am now a fighter for the fair tax because it will level the playing field for our manufacturers with factories around the world. second thing is we have to get these regulators pulled back, and the third is we have to finally have an energy policy over all these years. >> moderator: thank you, mr. perdue. that concludes our first round. in the second round, each

candidate will ask one question of his opponent. each candidate will have 30 seconds to ask his question, then the person asked will have 60 seconds to respond, and then the questioner will have 30 seconds for a rebuttal. by random selection, david perdue asks the first question. mr. perdue. perdue: thank you, dennis. congress matching, you were forced to return $80,000 of illegal contributions funneled to your campaign by a palestinian felon of the united states government. and the government is actually trying to deport him. my question for you, congressman, why would satari go to such extreme measures to move so much money to your campaign? kid he want to help with his deportation problem, or did he want money, appropriations for his two companies? kingston: david, as you know, the investigation about this gentleman is about him, it is not about us. when it became apparent that we had some -- there were some questions about this, we ordered

a very thorough internal review to make sure that we had complied with all the fec laws. this gentleman is not a donor to our campaign, nor to our knowledge was he involved, but when there were questions about it, we voluntarily returned all the money. now, we think that the it's very important to comply with the fec which is why you know about this situation. i would ask this question, who are your donors? we though that you have put in about $3 million of your own dollars in it, but who's financing your superpac? you know, a superpac op your behalf, a superpac on my behalf. my super pac which isn't mine no more than yours is your, but they disclose who the donors are. we have no idea who is supporting your super pac and trying to influence this -- >> moderator: mr. kingston, thank you. and by the way, was that going to be your question for mr. perdue? we only get one in the debate. >> don't i get a reputtal?

>> moderator: don't worry, we'll get to that. kink kink that's not my question. >> moderator: all right. mr. perdue, you have 30 seconds to rebut. perdue: the story keeps changing. your own attorney has now admitted that you did know about this contribution, you did know this individual, you did take the money and that you did cover it up. you know, it looks to me like with the fb, and i the u.s. attorney investigating right now that you need to come clean about this finally. it's pretty obvious. if you have money and you want to buy a favor or influence, jack kingston's open for business. >> moderator: mr. kingston, your question for mr. perdue. kingston: let me first of all say i would have expected a little more -- >> moderator: mr. kingston, we need to get to your question. kingston: here's my question to you. you move today georgia in 2010, and your cousin, the governor, gave you a sweetheart insider appointment to one of the most prestigious boards on the state,

the georgia ports authority, in which you two were doing business. and in your capacity, you made millions -- you made many decisions that influenced millions of dollars in spending on there and didn't sign a disclosure. are we to believe that you did that in your trucking company -- and your trucking company did not benefit from your select position? >> moderator: mr. perdue. perdue: well, congressman, just like all the other allegations that have been proven to be false in the last three months that have been actually refuted by outside fact checkers, there's absolutely no, nothing to this. but now that you bring the port be up, i'd like to remind people that we've been trying, you've been trying for 17 years to deepen this port 5 feet. that's what we've been doing for 17 years while china's built one entire port in the last three years. this is an economic engine. in the real world, you would have been fired for that performance, and now here you are wanting a promotion. folks, that's what's wrong with career politicians. >> moderator: mr. kingston,

you have 30 seconds to rebut. kingston: i'm going to read you this disclaimer that you never signed as a member of the port board. i con 23eur78 i have taken no official action as public officer in the previous calendar year which had a material effect on my, financial or business interests. you had a company that did business in and around the port, and you did not sign this disclosure saying you had no conflicts of interest. now, let's talk about deepening the port. you never were up there lobbying and pushing which is where the port authority was supposed to be doing, and the reason why is you were making money off of your appointment rather than trying to help us get this port deepened. >> moderator: mr. kingston, time's up. thank you very much. for those of you just joining us, this is the debate between the republican candidates for the united states senate. and we'll now go to our third and final round n. this round, each of our panelists will ask a question to the candidate of his or her choice until we run out of time, and i will determine

whether a rebuttal is appropriate. eric sturgis, you get the first question. go right ahead. >> mr. perdue, you talked earlier about your efforts to try -- the importance of trying to get the economy to grow. and, first, i was wondering where do you stand on an internet sales tax, and i was wondering if you could clarify your position on federal tax revenue since there have been questions about whether or not you'd like to see taxes raised. perdue: thank you for asking that question. that's already been cleared out by several outside interests telegraphing the news, in fact check, politifact, all these people refuted the fact i ever said i wanted tax increases. i want to put the fair tax in because it will level the playing field with the rest of the world for our manufacturers and business interests. this is one of the problems you only have in washington when you have about ten people who have any business experience. the unintended consequences of our policies have decimated entire industries; footwear,

apparel, electronics, even furniture. and what we've got to do is get back to the basics in letting our manufacturers compete with other manufacturers around the world. >> moderator: ben roberts, it's your turn to ask a question. >> neither of you, when you just had a chance to ask your opponent a question, brought up an issue that i think is important to georgia voters. you didn't talk about jobs or national security or any of the foreign policy crises that are going on in the world right now. you basically tried to attack each other with what may or may not be manufactured scandal. isn't that the kind of cynical campaigning the georgia voters are sick of? >> moderator: i'll assume that question is to both of them, is that -- >> yes, sir. >> moderator: all right. and, let's see, we started with mr. perdue, so, mr. kingston, you'll get the first try at this one. kingston: i have talked over and

over again about a six-point plan which i have talked about everywhere in georgia from the florida to the tennessee line. i've talked about having a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, pushing back on the regulatory overload such as repealing obamacare, dodd-frank and some of the epa mandates. i've talked about energy independence, building the keystone pipeline, talked about work fair over welfare and tax simplification. i'm very proud that fair tax author john limbedder has endorsed my candidacy along with rob woodall, we're fighting to get tax simplification done because we know it will stimulate the economy and be good for georgia jobs. i've always been great champion of the military in the state of georgia. i've represented five out of our eight military installations. the economic impact of that is $21 billion. but the point of the military isn't just to create job for georgia, it's to fight and win wars, and i've been a solid advocate for georgia's military.

>> moderator: thank you, mr. kingston. mr. perdue, you also have 60 seconds. perdue: thank you very much. first of all, the congressman's six-point plan in 2014, every tenet in that plan is exactly the same tenet that was in his seven-point plan in 2006. not one of those got accomplished. economic growth requires several things. first of all, you have to have an educated work force of we have our two-year colleges right now that are underutilized. we've got to yet them going. secondly, we've got to get an energy policy. we've waited for 40 years to get an all-inclusive energy process. we have a god given boon in new jersey right now, and we're frittering it away. congress is not focused on priorities right now. if you look at the regulatory arm, they let the epa -- the president couldn't get cap and trade passed, so he went around congress and told the epa to kill coal. and lastly, let's talk about tax. we're the only country in the world that has a repatriation tax that keeps $2 trillion or more outside this country. it's time that we get serious

about adding some economic value to our country's economy. thank you. >> moderator: all right. mr. kingston, he mentioned you at the very end -- beginning of your question. here's what'll happen. i'll give you 30 seconds to rebut, but if i do and you want to take it, then i will give mr. perdue 30 seconds as well. it's up to you. kingston: we've been fighting for the fair tax. where were you? where have you been? and now you're talking about a national energy tax, you want more government? isn't the problem washington mandating? you called for a national solution for the uninsured which, to me, is basically an endorsement of obamacare. and now you want the nanny state in washington to decide about our energy policy. don't you trust the private sector a little bit more? >> moderator: mr. perdue. 30 seconds for you. perdue: congressman, in 2006 i called you out, you and your compatriots, because when you were in charge, where was our

landmark health care bill? where was our landmark tax reform bill? energy policy? right now we're in this fix because that congress let, opened the door for obamacare, dodd-frank and other things that are decimating this economy. what we need are more people up there worried more about the next generation than the next election. >> moderator: and now it's time for our question from bobbi batista. >> the atlanta mayor wrote an opinion piece recently in the "wall street journal" saying he believes the u.s. government is all but broken and holds little promise of mending itself and that people and businesses will turn to cities for leadership, for services, for bold thinking and even for hope. do you think that the mayor has a point, and what do you think you can do to turn around a congress that has an approval rating of 9%? are we in crisis? kingston: as a member of congress, i've never forgot forgotten who with sent me and what i was sent to do.

libby and i've raised our four children in savannah. i've come how many every -- home every weekend. i've returned phone calls, i've showed up for town meetings. i have a 96% rating with the american conservative union. 2011 i passed one of the few appropriation bills that got signed by the president, and i negotiated with the harry reid senate to do it and cut spending $3.6 billion. the savannah port project of which my opponent has not been involved even though he was on the port board, that was our project. we started pushing that 352,000 jobs related to it. but when we started on it, it was just a little savannah, georgia be, project. now, essentially, we have every member of the delegation and the state legislature and everybody else behind it. but it took a long time to get it done. where was my opponent? >> moderator: mr. perdue? since he asked that question, you have 30 seconds to rebut. perdue: i was creating thousands of jobs in the real world. >> moderator: all right.

thank you. next we have eric sturgis, yes, who will have the next question. >> this question is for both candidates, but i'd like to start with congressman kingston. the highway trust fund is soon set to expire, and there's been little action to this point in congress on this. what, if any, plans do you support out there to keep this fund going particularly since georgia has so many infrastructure, roads and bridges needs? kingston: well, we need a permanent fix to the highway trust fund. two of the things we need to do is push back on some of the superfluous environmental laws that are causing a 30% increase in the cost of building roads. we need to also push back on the regulatory overburden from washington such as davis-bacon requirements and so many other things. i found it real interesting, my opponent just said he was creating jobs. perhaps he was referring to the 7500-plus people who were fired under his leadership. or maybe the 1700 whose jobs

were outplaced. is that the kind of job creation we need in washington, d.c.? that kind of wheeling and dealing? i don't think so. roads and infrastructure will build jobs, and that's why i've been supportive of roads, savannah port, our general aviation and hartsfield-jackson airport. >> moderator: mr. perdue, 60 seconds for you. perdue: congressman, you know full well that company was in bankruptcy before i got there. to address your question, this is the problem when you have an out-of-tough congress. this is a travesty. they had 2010, they funded and kicked the ball forward a couple of years, and here we are bankrupt again in that trust fund. this needs to go back to a principal of zero-based budging in our government, and if it's a priority, it gets budgeted. right now we are spending about a third of what we should be spending on as a country on all of our infrastructure, and because of that we're becoming

less and less competitive around the world. on this congressman's watch over the last 22 years, we have lost our competitive edge against many parts of the world, and it's time to change that. >> moderator: all right. 30 seconds for each of you for rebuttal. kingston: i've come home every single weekend. i've had open mic town meetings. i've worked with people who disagree with me. david, your whole lifestyle is based in a different way. now, you have done well for yourself. but you live in a gated community, inside a gated community and have a gate at your house. how are you going to work with john q. public when they come up to you and have questions? i think part of being a public servant is being public and being a servant. knowing who you're working for and being accessible to them is extremely important. >> moderator: mr. perdue? perdue: congressman, i'm proud you're accessible, and look at the results it's begin us. my mom and dad were schoolteachers. i worked my way through school at georgia tech. i've been very blessed in my

career, and i'm not going to apologize for that success. but let me tell you why i'm getting in this thing, i'm getting in here to solve the mess that you and your cohorts have created over the last 22 years. >> moderator: all right, gentlemen, thank you. and we have time for one more question, and we'll go to ben roberts for that, and because of the time constraints, we'll just ask that one question of both candidates, ben, if you don't mind. >> it seems that compromise and cooperation have turned into dirty words in washington. yet i really think that's what most georgia voters expect from our representatives in washington. can you tell us one important issue on which you agree with president obama and explain how you would work with democrats to get action, to get something done on that issue? >> moderator: we'll start with mr. perdue on that -- perdue: let me answer that this way. i think what's needed is republican leadership. let's get a few democrats to to agree with one of our ideas for a change. one simple idea. we're the only country that has

a repatriation tax which means that u.s. profits are trapped offshore. i promise you that we could get a few democrats to agree with that principle if we would just explain it to them. and the fact that they have wizs wizs -- businesses in their states, i promise you we could get a con census on that and get that changed. >> moderator: mr. kingston? kingston: let me give you three examples. number one the port port of savannah which i championed, worked hard to get done while my opponent was absolutely absentee, even though he was on the board. not a single letter was ever received from him, but now everybody in georgia is supporting the deepingenning of the savannah hard harbor. we've been the champion of that. 2011 i passed as chairman of the ag appropriation bills one of the few appropriation bills that got signed by the president. it cut spending over $3 billion. these are things that are very important. and then as recently as this week we passed the jobs bill

that consolidated some of the duplications in the federal jobs programs. 47 different federal jobs programs. and we've been pushing and pushing to consolidate that to make it more efficient and more effective for the american workers who are looking to get back into the job market. >> moderator: all right. once again we've got time for each of you for 30 seconds for rebuttal. mr. perdue, we start with you. perdue: well, i think the topic on the table tonight is how do we get people working together. that's the seminal question, i believe. we've got to get this economy going, and i think we have to get bad government policy out of the way. we have 36 united states senators who have been in elected office for over 30 years. it's time we finally have term limits to bring fresh thought, new perspectives to that august body up there. >> moderator: mr. kingston, 30 seconds for you. kingston: let me say this, my opponent talks about jobs. i'm the one endorsed by the united states chamber of commerce. he sought that but did not yet it. i have 100% rating with the

national federation of independent businesses. i was in the private sector, i know the importance be of pushing back on the regulatory overreach. but where was my opponent when we were fighting things like the stimulus bill? he sat on a board that received stimulus money. where was he when we were fighting obamacare? he was out telling people we need a national solution to the uninsured. there's a big difference between us. >> moderator: thank you, mr. kingston. and that's all the time we have for questions. now each candidate will have 60 seconds for a closing statement, and we begin with mr. perdue. per perithank you. folks, the congressman's been in washington for 22 years. if he were really going to make a difference, wouldn't he have done it already? if we can dill out of this crisis -- dig out of this crisis, but not by sending the same people back up there who crated this mess in the first place. if you like what's going on in washington, then vote for my opponent. you know nothing will change. but if you're as outraged as i am about the size and scope of

this government, about the excuses they're giving us for not securing our borders and about the size of debt they're piling up on the backs of our kids and grandkids, then stand up with me and help me take our country back. i'm david perdue. i'm the pru conservative in this race -- true conservative in this race, the outsider. i'm asking for your vote, but more importantly, i'm asking for your trust on july 22nd. god bless you. god bless georgia, and may god bless the united states of america. thank you. >> moderator: thank you, mr. perdue. mr. kingston, your closing statement. kink kink ladies and gentlemen -- kink kink, ladies and gentlemen, president obama ran as an outsider. do you really know what you're getting with david perdue? we know that when i was fighting the stimulus bill, he sat on a board that received over $140 million in stimulus dollars. when i was fighting the wall street bailout, he called it a decent investment. when i was fighting amnesty, he

said he thought the senate amnesty bill -- supported by barack obama -- he said it was a step in the right direction. you know, the biggest margin i received in the primary was in coastal georgia from the people who know me the best because they know i'm a tested, consistent conservative who has not joined the club in washington d.c. i've stayed on the front line of the fight. that's why i'm endorsed by karen handel and phil be gingrey and newt gingrich and sean hannity and. eric:son who tea party leadership and fair tax author john lindor and flat tax author steve forbes. ladies and gentlemen, i'm a tested, consistent conservative who's never -- >> moderator: mr. kingston -- kingston: -- never lost the battle -- >> moderator: i apologize. we're right up on our time. thank you to both of you. that concludes our debate, and we'd like to remind the voters that the primary runoff elections will be held tuesday, july 22nd. early voting, by the way, is already underway. our thanks to the candidates and

to our panel of journalists. we'd also like to thank the atlanta press club for arranging tonight's debate. for more information about the atlanta press club can and all of the debates they are hosting this election season, just visit atlantapressclub.org. this debate will be around kentuckyed there. the debate will also be available on demand. the atlanta press club debate series is made possible by a donation from our charles -- [inaudible] please stay with gpb for georgia outdoors, snakes alive up next. i'm dennis o' hayer, thanks for join us. >> today politico looks at the political climate heading into fall's midterm elections and the potential implications for 2016's presidential election. political consultants, pollsters and appropriators will take part of the discussion. you can see it live beginning at noon eastern here on c-span2.

>> c-span2 with coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events, and every weekend booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> now, a senate judiciary committee hearing on the women's health protection act. the it's a bill that prohibits laws restricting women's access to abortion services. connecticut senator risch ard blumenthal of connecticut, the pill's sponsor, presided over the hearing. women members of the u.s. house and senate as well as doctors and advocates with differing perspectives on reproductive rights provided remarks. it's just under 30 minutes.

>> welcome to everyone. thank you for joining us today, thank you to our witnesses, thanks to our ranking member, senator grassley, and most especially to senator leahy, the chairman of the judiciary committee, for giving me this privilege of chairing this hearing. we are convened today to hear testimony regarding the women's health protection act, removing barriers to constitutionally-protected reproductive rights. and our first panel consists of a number of our colleagues who have positions and views on this issue. we welcome you this morning from the house as well as my colleague, senator baldwin of the senate, who is my cosponsor in the measure that's now pending before the senate and has been a leader for a long time in this area. we have support from more than 30 of our senate colleague cans, and my understanding is that the

companion measure introduced by representative chu has 125 cosponsors in the house or thereabouts. the reason for this bill is, essentially, the avalanche of restrictions on reproductive health care around the country. what we see increasingly is, in effect, an avalanche of measures that purportedly protect women's health care, but in reality reticket reproductive rights. -- restrict reproductive rights. ..

>> this legislation would eliminate limitations on access to abortion services and eliminate the targeting and unwarranted restrictions against abortion providers and clinics no matter where a woman may live. in fact, more than half the states now have these very unwarranted and unconstitutional restrictions. and the majority of women in our country live in those states. they have passed 92 restrictions on a woman's right to choose in those states sent 2011. more than 100, and in 2014, at least another dozen of these

harmful laws have been enacted. so we are talking about serious harassment of reproductive health care providers, singling them out for regulations that apply to no other medical services. regulations that do nothing to improve a woman's health or safety and, in fact, are more likely to harm them. these regulations are designed to shut doors of vital health care providers forever, and that purpose has been fulfilled across the country as the availability of these services has been restricted. these regulations are in effect a pernicious charade, and one of the purposes that i see in this hearing is to remove the respectability and show that they are, many of them, irresponsible and even reprehensible under the guise of

protecting women's health care, the actual in danger. i want to thank again our witnesses and my fellow members for making this hearing happen. we may disagree on these issues, but i know that we're going to a very enlightening and engaging hearing. and i want to turn now to the ranking member, senator grassley, for his remarks. >> thank you to our colleagues in the other body that are here, as well as senator from wisconsin. and thank you for the succeeding panel that will be here. four and a half years ago a woman walked into an abortion clinic with expectations that she would have her pregnancy terminated and that she would walk out of the clinic without major side effects. she was 41 years old, 19 weeks pregnant. she had three children and she was also a grandmother. she and her daughter entered, but she never left alive.

her name was -- she was one of many victims. a clinic in west philadelphia for four decades. he made a living by performing abortions that no other doctor should ever do. the grand jury report charging permit stated quote, his approach was simple. keep volume high, expenses low, break the law. that was his competitive advantage, end of quote. also according to the grand jury report, gosnell ran a baby house that smelled of cat urine, furniture and blankets were stained with blood, instruments were not sterilized, and medical equipment was broken. he provided same-day service,

required counseling was ignored. the bigger the baby, the bigger the charge. ultrasounds were forged so the government would never know how old aborted babies truly were. babies were born alive, killed after breathing on their own by sticking scissors in the back of the baby's neck and cutting its spinal cord. these were live, breathing, squirming babies. he didn't care about the well being of these aborted babies. he didn't care about the health of women. women were put under because he disliked them moaning and groaning, screaming. this practice and his disregard for the law led to the death of two women, including the one that i have already mentioned. now, pennsylvania has a law against abortions after 24 weeks. it also has a very commonsense law that says women should receive counseling about

abortion procedures, and they must wait 24 hours after the first visit to provide a note to fully consider the decisions about their about to make. while it is true that kermit gosnell ignored the law, these laws have saved lives. they have saved women from horrible life-threatening procedures. they have saved the babies. if the bill we're discussing today, the women's health protection act, were to become law, pennsylvania's laws would be invalidated. abortion providers would not be required to counsel their patients or give them 24 hours to consider what they were about to do. and more importantly, it would lead to inhumane, unsanitary, danger, shocking, dangers of abortion. the law that helped convict kermit gosnell would be wiped away. this proposed legislation is an attempt to override u.s. supreme court precedent by several

severely restricting to build of states to regulate abortion. it would invalidate hundreds of abortion related laws such as clinic regulations, admitting privileges requirements, regulations on abortion inducing drugs, reflection periods, ultrasound requirements, conscious protections, sex selection bands, and limitations on the use of state funds and facilities for abortion training. now, my home state of iowa has laws on the books to protect unborn and the health of the women. for example, and i will stipulates that when inducing an abortion by providing an abortion inducing drug am a physician must be physically present with a woman at the time of the abortion inducing drug is provided. that was enacted to ensure that women were not taking abortion inducing drugs via webcam and then far from a medical provider

may save the life of a problem can do. also have the law on the books to protect the rights of medical professionals, specifically the losses quote an individual who may lawfully perform, assist or bridges that in medical procedures which will result in an abortion shall not be required against the individuals religious beliefs or moral convictions to perform from a system or participate in such procedures. a person shall not discriminate against any individual in any way, including but not limited to, employment, promotion, advancement, transfer, licensing, education, training or granting of hospital privileges or staff appointments because of the individual participation in or refusal to participate in recommending performing or assisting in an abortion procedure, and, of course. iowa like many other states have taken action on their own to make sure that abortions are done safely. they have protected individuals

from having to kill babies against their own religious beliefs. yet the bill before us would invalidate these laws and would allow abortion providers to set standards of care for their patients with no oversight from the states but it would allow health care workers to determine when life is viable, ensuring that there are several and varying standards across the country. the bill would invalidate laws enacted by 10 states since 2010 which declared the onboard children are capable of experiencing pain -- unborn. by at least 20 weeks of fetal age and that generally prohibit abortion after that point. if the bill before us were to be signed into law, the federal government would send a message to states that enacting laws to protect patients and regulate the health and welfare of their citizens is not one of the 10th amendment rights. it would allow congress to improved on states' rights and

nullify such laws. this bill is a week political opportunity before the midterm elections. it's unfortunate that that the majority is using this issue to appear compassionate and concerned about women's rights, when in reality the bill disregards popular and commonsense laws enacted in very states aimed at protecting women and children across this country and stopping murderers like kermit gosnell. large majority of americans support strong abortion restrictions that this bill would overturn. this bill will not become law because the american people won't support it. i thank the witnesses once again. thank you. >> thank you, senator grassley. we will now hear from our colleagues, and again my thanks to the congresswoman welcome to join us. let's begin with senator baldwin if we may. >> thank you, chairman blumenthal and ranking member grassley, and members of the committee for this opportunity.

i am encouraged that the committee is pursuing a constructive conversation on this issue. i'm grateful for the opportunity to share my work on the women's health protection act. i would also like to recognize the tireless advocacy of my wisconsin state representative, chris taylor, who is here today and will be on the second panel to share her experiences working to defend women's access to health care in wisconsin. i thank her for her testimony today. americans across the country expect to have access to high quality, dependable health care when they and their families need it. indeed, like always and i worked to reform and improve health care, the entire health care system, to expand access to quality, affordable health care options so that all patients have health care that meets their needs. unfortunately for women in this country this access comes under attack.

over the last 40 years, politicians across the country being increasingly chipping away at the constitutional rights guaranteed under roe v. wade. which affirmed that women have the right to make their own personal health care decisions and have access to a safe and legal reproductive care. since that landmark decision by our nation's highest court, too many states have been trying to turn back the clock on women's access to quality care. in just the past three years states across this country have enacted a total of 205 provisions that restrict women's access to safe abortion services. this year, 13 states have been busy working to erode women's freedoms and have already adopted 21 new restrictions designed to limit access to abortion here in my home state of wisconsin, we are now ranked as one of the worst states when

it comes to women's reproductive rights thanks to the restrictive measures enacted by our governor and our legislature. to name just one, last year our governor signed a measure forcing women who are already required by law to make two separate trips to the clinic to also undergo an invasive ultrasound 24 hours before receiving abortion care. this same law also forces health care professionals to have unnecessary admitting privileges at a local hospital. if it were not for a federal judge temporarily blocking this provision, to of wisconsin's for abortion clinics would have been forced to shut their doors and others would've been forced to reduce services, leaving many wisconsin women out in the cold. but women at it, should not have to rely on last minute court decisions to be able to make the

best health decisions for themselves and their families. i recently heard from a mother and built-in wisconsin who wasn't so lucky. -- middleton, wisconsin. when she found out her baby had a severe eagle anomaly that would not survive delivery, she had to endure the consequences of the governor's new law before the judge blocked the provision. she had to undergo an emergency termination and a clinic in milwaukee was the only place that would be the procedure. but because the governor was set to sign this law imposing unreasonable requirements on provide, the clinic was preparing to close its doors and would not schedule her procedure. she and her husband were forced to find childcare for their two sons, and travel out of state so she could receive the medical care she needed. the threat in wisconsin and in

states across the country is clear. some politicians are doing this because they think they know better than women and their doctors. and the fact is that they don't. women are more than capable of making their own personal, medical decisions without consulting their legislator. it is not the job of politicians to play doctor and to dictate how professionals practice medicine. nor is it our job to enter in the private lives and important health decisions of american families. this is why i'm proud to be a cosponsor of the women's health protection act with my colleague, senator blumenthal and congresswoman chu, to put a stop to these religious attacks on women's freedom. let me conclude by briefly describing the bill. the women's health protection act would prohibit these laws that undermine and infringe on a woman's constitutional rights guaranteed under roe v. wade. specifically, our bill would

outlaw any mandate all regulation that does not significantly advanced women's health or safety. our legislation also protects women by invalidating measures that make abortion services more difficult to access and restrictions on the provision of abortion services that are not imposed on any other medical procedures. congress is responsible for enforcing every american fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution. throughout history, when states have passed laws that make it harder, or even impossible, to exercise those rights, we have necessary step in with federal protections. the women's health protection act would ensure that every woman, no matter where she lives, has access to safe, quality reproductive care without interference from politicians. i thank you for your time. >> thank you, senator. representative of black. >> chairman blumenthal, ranking

member grassley and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. as has been said my name is diet like and i'm privileged to have the honor of serving in the house of representatives imap of tennessee's sixth congressional district. prior to answering -- interpublic serves i don't like grip around the health care sector as a registered nurse. my career began as an emergency room nurse where i spent the majority of my career but i've also worked as a long term care nurse and part of an outpatient surgery teen. i decided to run for office after i witnessed firsthand how poor public policy was directly impacting my ability to deliver health care, and more importantly, the unfortunate outcomes on the lives of my patients. today i am here to share with you, as a colleague in the house, and also as a mother, a grandmother, and a nurse, my grave concerns with the chairman's legislation. although called the women's

health protection act, this bill would nullify and declare unlawful any law at any level of the government, whether federal, state, or local, that presents with the bill james to be an undue burden on women seeking an abortion to this legislation would effectively overturn the majority of state laws regulating abortion. as a nurse i can tell you that abortion is unlike any other medical procedure. this is an act that does not just involve a mother, but the child. it takes the life of an unborn child and in the process, imposes many serious medical risks to the mother. to be clear and transparent, i am unapologetically pro-life. while i believe the life of an unborn must be protected, i also believe that we must do everything in our power to protect any woman who decide to have an abortion, even though i may disagree with their choice.

during my time in the er, a young woman came in after having complications with her abortion, which have been done in a clinic that was not regulated properly. when the complications occurred there was no answer at the after hours number that she called. by the time she reached the hospital, she was dying and there was nothing that i or the doctors could do to save her life. as a result of an abortion, a young woman lost her precious life. her life could've been saved if proper regulations had been in place that protected her health and the well being, and that held the abortionist accountable. now, infections occur one to 5% of the abortions. cervical lacerations, incompetent cervix and other injuries can occur to the cervix and other organs during the abortion procedures. worse, miners are up to twice as likely to experience cervical lacerations during an abortion, and over all, are even more susceptible to short-term risks

than our older women. women who've had abortions are added 37% increased risk of preterm birth and subsequent pregnancies, a 30-50% increase of placental previa in subsequent pregnancies, and 18% more likely to develop breast cancer as opposed to the average of just 12%. in the case of women with a family history of breast cancer, this jumps up to 80% of abortions battle impose serious physical risk but endanger a woman's mental health as well. studies show that having an abortion a woman is 81% more likely to develop a mental health issue, is 37% increased risk of depression, 110% increased risk of our colleges, and sadly, 155% increase in the risk of suicide. after they were the case of abortionist kermit gosnell,

americans know that even though abortions are legal, these are procedures that are risky and must be developed. must be regulated. perhaps that is why 39 states require that abortions be performed by a licensed physician and why 26 page report abortion clinics to meet the same clinic standards as ambulatory surgical care centers. just as important, 42 states prohibit abortions after certain point in the pregnancy, and about nine prohibit abortions at 20 weeks, or at the start of the six month of pregnancy when medical research affirms that unborn children can feel the pain during an abortion. we are discussing a medical procedure that ends a human life. let us not also forget that the supreme court indicated and planned parenthood v. casey that the government has an interest in preserving the life. senate bill 1696 represents a sweeping attempt to undermine dozens of measures enacted by states to protect women, all

under the false pretense that abortions are safe and rare. my hope today is a we can reach across party lines, realize our preconceived notions on this topic and see abortions for what they really are. abortion is brutal, to both the mother and the unborn child. it is not health care. to reference the supreme court, and dilation and extraction abortion which revisits the majority of abortion procedures in american is a generally gruesome as part, partial-birth abortion. this abortion procedure -- these abortion procedures are the most common for abortions performed in the second trimester of pregnancy with the unborn child is literally torn apart limb by limb. in considering this and the many health care risk that can occur as a result of abortions, i strongly urge you to reconsider advancing senate bill 6096 and any other effort that would undermine current laws that exist to protect the health and well being of women and unborn child at the federal level,

state, local government level. thank you again for the opportunity to be here today and i yield back. >> thank you, represented black. congresswoman chu. >> thank you, general blumenthal, recommend aggressive and committee members with the opportunity to testify today. every woman should have access to affordable and comprehensive health care coverage that protects a right to choose. this should be the case regardless of her income, the type of interest she has a state she resides in. so that she can make personal health decisions based on what is best for her and her family. but we are witnessing an alarming moment in time. attacks on reproductive rights are intensifying. having lost in the court system with a row the way, opponents of reproductive freedom are trying to undercut our constitutional right and make it increasingly difficult to access a legal abortion. they're trying to take us back

to a time before roe when 1.2 million women resorted to illegal abortions each year. their goal is to take us back to a time when unlike the doctor in unsanitary conditions, performed abortions that lead to infections, hemorrhages and at times death. they are taking us back to a time when many women new to hazards but risked all of this because they were desperate, and this was their only option. the new trend is to shut down abortion services, but this time state by state. this is happening all across the country, individual states have signed into law restrictive regulation 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's

health care in three years than in the entire preceding decade. the effect of these laws is that a woman's constitutional right now depends on her address. the right of women residing in my home state of california now vastly differ from the rights of women living in texas or mississippi. according to the got macker institute, the just 6% of women, over half the women in her country now live in a state that is hostile to abortion. these laws range from mandatory waiting periods to the exact size requirements and quarter with for the offices and which the procedure is to take place. there are laws like the recent one in texas which make no sense medically. they require doctors performing abortions teachers throughout formal admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic, among other senseless

requirements. we already see the effects. after the law passed, clinics began closing their doors. for women in texas this means longer waits, higher costs and canceled appointments. some have to travel over 150 miles to get to the nearest clinic. these obstacles have that many women in desperate circumstances, some of which may very well endanger their lives. we need laws that put women's health and safety first, not politics. and that is why we introduced the women's health protection act this congress. we recognize that without the ability to access it, the right to abortion is meaningless. this bill would outlaw the restrictive state laws that target abortion services and shut down clinics across the country. the bill would outlaw state mandated medical procedures such as forced older sounds restrictions on medication abortions and other owners trap laws. simply put, this bill would end

discrimination against abortion access for women based on their zip code. i am so proud to be a lead sponsor of this bill in the house, and to partner with senators blumenthal, baldwin, and congress members fudge and frankel, to push as hard as we can on this bill. we already have 124 cosponsors in the house. constitutional rights should never be subject to the personal whims or beliefs of political leaders. know or should the safety of mothers 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, safety and rights of all women. >> thank you, represented shoe. representative. >> i appreciate opportunity to join you all.

sender gaza, thank you for the invitation. i think that it is fair to say that everyone of us at this table, and certainly each of you you, we all want what is best for women. we differ on what that is and we differ on how to get there. and i am very appreciative of the opportunity to be here and to talk with you about this legislation, the women's health protection act. in my opinion, it is something that is extraordinarily broad. it is loosely written, and through its wide ranging words wouldn't come in my opinion, substitute the special interests of the abortion issue and industry for both the well being of women and the value of human life. the legislation would jeopardize and nullify hundreds of laws as has been previously been mentioned at this table. laws that protect both mothers and their unborn children. among my concerns with the bill,

and senator grassley mentioned several of these, it would render impossible efforts by the states to limit abortions based on the sex of the child. it would put a double pressure on women who are often forced, often forced by familial over cultural pressures to exercise male bias in pregnancy and eliminate a female child. furthermore, this legislation sets a dangerous precedent because it would place unconstitutional limits on a state's ability to assure the safety of medical facilities. abortions are indeed invasive medical procedures and should be regulated by the state as such. in addition by considering this legislation, many of your constituents perceive that this body is out of touch with the consensus opinion in this country. public opinion polls show time

and again that the american people support limits on abortion. they support this. 60% of americans believe abortion should not be permitted in the second trimester, and an overwhelming 80% believed they should never happen in the third. women hold of these convictions at higher percentages than men, and it is no wonder. we better life, and we bear the burden when public policy fail to support women at a critical our. the committee would be well advised to consider how far this bill goes and reversing and uprooting both a long existing and rising consensus. s. 1696 would attack conscious exemptions that have existed since the 1973 abortion decision to it would bar laws that would provide for various of reflection and consideration before an abortion is chosen.

it would even prevent a state from assuring that a physician is physically present went abortion drugs are given, or even that only a physician may perform a surgical abortion. it would make the abortion process less safe. what the shia that -- what the senate should be considering today is that paying capable unborn child protection act which passed the house might on june 17, 2014, on a bipartisan vote, 228-196. that paying capable act is a piece of legislation that is supported by the american people. it is based in science and filled with compassion. that paying capable unborn protection act limits abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy except in instances of rape, incest or protect the life of the mother. our nation is one of only about seven countries in the world that allow elective abortion to

turn. and this legislation would take one small but vital step to move us closer to the international norms. polls by quinnipiac university, the "washington post" of "huffington post" have all shown that a strong majority of people support limiting abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy. quinnipiac university poll shows that women supported 20 we could limit in even greater numbers than men, 60% of women versus 20% in opposition. 35-point margin. let me give you an example of why these have changed. you all have an exhibit from me, and i want to show you this. this is a 3-d ultrasound of my grandson. it was made on march 11, 2009, before his birth june 12 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 was born. he had my eyes and nose. now, for a grandmother, that's a really big deal. i could see his hands. i get these his arms -- i could see his arms. i could see him peacefully resting in his mother's womb. that's the wonder of science. that is life. our constitution does not put a qualifier on life. the pursuit of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. those protections, the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, even in the mother's womb.

i urge this committee to reconsider this legislation. we have mentioned it today the horrors of the kermit gosnell trial, the philadelphia-based abortionist who ran a dangerous illegal and ghastly so-called clinic. he was tried, rightfully convicted for the crimes he committed, and the deaths at a cost in that terrible place. yet, the legislation that you're considering, the women's health protection act, could be used to validate the act that placed him in bars and to invalidate the bipartisan legislation put in place. i find it so curious that your legislation is termed the women's health protection act. in my opinion it would more accurately be titled the removal of existing protections and safety measures for women undergoing abortion act. i encourage you to reconsider your legislation, to take up the

pain-capable unborn child protection act, and to be more in line with the consensus of americans in the states who are making certain that abortion is indeed safe, legal and rare. i yield the balance of my time. >> thanks to each of you and we will move to our next panel. we really appreciate you being here this morning. thanks for your excellent testimony. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> before you get too comfortable i'm going to ask you to stand, because the custom of our committees to swear in our witnesses, if you would please rise. do you offer them the test me about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you. let me introduce our witnesses before they give their testimony. we will begin with nancy northup who is the president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights. she has worked as a constitutional litigator and federal prosecutor. before her appointment at the center for reproductive rights, which is a global human rights organization, that has documented rights abuses,

brought ground breaking cases before federal and state courts, u.n. committees come regional human rights bodies and has built the legal capacity of legal rights advocates in more than 55 countries. dr. monique chireau is an obstetrician gynecologist in durham, north carolina, and affiliate with multiple hospitals in the area. including duke university hospital in durham veterans affairs medical. she's one of 250 doctors at duke university hospital and one of five at durham veterans affairs medical center who specialize in obstetrics and gynecology. dr. willie parker, our third witness, has over 20 years of experience providing comprehensive women's medical care. he is board certified and trained in preventive medicine through the center for disease and control. dr. park are currently provides abortion care for women in

alabama and mississippi. carol tobias as president of the national right to life committee. she has held there is positions at the national right to life committee since 1991. representative christopher represents assembly district 76 and the wisconsin assembly, she has a long history of working with the state legislature, even prior to her election in 2011, she has led numerous state and local coalitions in various settings around the state of wisconsin. we welcome you all and thank you very, very much for being here this morning. nancy northup. >> thank you, senator blumenthal -- for having us here today for this important hearing. i am nancy northup and i'm president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights. today, one of our most basic protections of the constitution, the right to make for ourselves

important decisions of our lives is under assault for women throughout fast locks of the nation. there've been over 200 state laws passed in the last three years designed to make it harder or impossible for women to access abortion services in their community. we are not blocked by courts. this new wave of restriction is shutting down clinics, closing off essential services and harming women. this is the newest tactic in a four decade campaign to deprive women of the promise of roe v. wade. there have been during those four decades terrorizing physical attacks, clinics bombed, vandalized and torched, doctors and clinic workers murdered, and clinics blockaded. 25 years ago i locked arms with members of my church and concerned citizens in baton rouge to form a human chain of protection around a reproductive health care clinic as hundreds of operation rescue protesters

descended intent on obstructing patients from entering. this scene was played out over and over again across the nation. federal action was needed and taken in 1994 with congress' passage of the freedom of access to clinic entrances act. today, women's access to abortion services the is being blocked to an avalanche of protection laws that are designed to accomplish by the end what could not be accomplished through brute force. the closure of the sims providing essentially reproductive health care to women of this country. at an alarming rate they have been passing laws that single out reproductive health care providers, regulations signed to record him of practice under the false pretense of health and safety. when mississippi enacted a law in 2012 a state senator put it quite plainly. there's only one abortion clinic in mississippi, he said.

i hope this measure shuts that down. right now mississippi's sole clinic is holding on by virtue of a temporary court order. the true purpose of these laws is evident. abortion is one of the safest medical procedures yet is being singled out for burdensome restrictions not place on comparable medical procedures. for example, obstetricians who performed miscarriage completions in the office, practices, are not subject to these requirements despite the fact that they're performing virtually the same medical procedure as abortion providers who are subject to these requirements. the american medical association and the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists have gone on record, against many of these laws and, indeed, other testimony before you today. courts have found some sort on with medical standards that they can serve no purpose but to prevent women from ending a

pregnancy. but the roadblocks keep coming. a year ago texas passed a sweeping set of restrictions what does it affect the at least one-third of that states clinics have been forced to stop providing abortion care. there is no clinic left in the rio grande valley, an impoverished area with over 123 million residents. if the final requirement of texas restriction is allowed to go into effect in september, the number of clinics will plummet to less than 10 deserve a sprawling estate of over 260,000 square miles, and 13 million women. even before this new law, a 2012 study in texas found that 7% of women reported that tends to self abort before seeking medical care. now, women are crossing the border into mexico to buy miscarriage inducing drugs at flea markets or off the shelves at pharmacies and then seeking immediate emergency care back in texas. like all of us are, i come to

the issue of abortion rights with my own set of life experiences, personal commitments and religious beliefs. as the supreme court wisely noted over 20 years ago in planned parenthood v. casey, men and women of good conscience can disagree and probably always will. about the moral and spiritual implications of ending a pregnancy. in reaffirming roe v. wade, the court reminded us quote that it is the promise of the constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. the most fundamental decisions about our record of health and lives are for each of us to make a not for the government. one in three women in the united states makes the decision at some point in her life that ending a pregnancy is the right choice for her. that decision is based on their individual circumstances, her health and her life. none of us walk in her shoes,

none of us know the factors that lead to her decision. and when a woman makes that decision, she needs a good, safe, reliable care from a health care provider she trusts in or near the community that she calls home, but today a woman's ability to do so increasingly depends on the state in which she happens to live. like 20 years ago congress needs to take action to ensure that women's constitutional rights and the ability to make the most personal of decisions is not taken from them. thank you. >> thank you, ms. northup. doctor monique chireau spent yes, thank you. it's an honor -- thank you. it's an honor to be here today, senator blumenthal, senator grassley. inez doctor monique chireau. among the faculty of the duke university medical school and also practicing obstetrician gynecologist and a clinical researcher. s. 1696 could be interpreted to

invalidate virtually any type of the current state laws which place restrictions on, religion on abortion but it would endanger health care providers freedoms of conscience but it would prohibit the future enactment of such protective laws. the purpose of the bill as we understood is to protect women's health by ensuring that abortion services will continue to be available. implicit in the stated purpose of the bill are the four following assumption. number one which is that abortion is good and save for women. number two, rig regulation are medically aborted. number three, access to abortion is important to women's health and number four, the state has no interest in protecting unborn children. i will address each of these -- cdc defines an induced abortion as an intervention performed by a licensed clinician that is intended to terminate a suspected or known pregnancy a produce a non-viable fetus at

any gestational age. ththe supreme court has officiay acknowledged abortion isn't have a different from other medical procedures because no of the procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life. the abortion decision has implications far broader than those associate with other medical treatment. assumption number one is abortion is good for women. however, substantial body of literature indicates induced abortion associate with associate risk in harms to women. it's due to be very safe, however in a very large study from finland, 42619 women, maternal mortality rates from abortion was 14.1 per 100,000 approximately 20% of those women in the study underwent severe adverse event such as hemorrhage and infection. among these women, were included both surgical and medical abortion. for these women. these statistics represent a

significant burden of disease in these works that legitimate state that would be 260,000 adverse events per year. further research has demonstrated that the risk for abortion performed at greater than 21 weeks is greater come as good when performed at 21 weeks then lower gestational ages. they range from .12.4 to 100,008.9 to 100,000 however because of problems with the denominator of the study, the results cannot easily be extrapolated. the point is late abortion carries a 77 times increased risk for mortality compared with earlier abortion. and that is a significant issue. this is mortality, this is not morbidity. this is a death. other complications can occur following abortion, induced abortion as we've heard earlier increases the risk of preterm birth. there's also a robust literature on mental health problems following abortion.

these mental health problems include anxiety, depression and so on. assumption number two state abortion restrictions labor relations are medically unwarranted. states have a compelling medical, interest in protecting the health of their citizens and they have the authority to do so within registered framework including state medical boards and department of health. states have regulated medical procedures by establishing standards for training and credentialing. these standards protect patients from injury and death. the fact of the matter is that patients interactions to occur within a vacuum. the issue of whether patients have access is a two-sided issue, a two edged issue. this is because access and you can have access to care which is inadequate, being performed by incompetent practitioners or even access to good care. zip codes do matter. in many zip codes in the united states patients have access to care which is inadequate in which endangers their health.

this bill would not protect the rights of patient because it would remove the ability of states to regulate the practice of medicine. in addition the scope of practice for different types of clinicians is carefully defined. recently there've been attempts by mid-level practitioners in several states to assume the role of providing abortion. again, this particular bill would remove the ability of states to monitor and supervise the practice of medicine through abortion. one of the questions that comes up in any of these discussions regarding the need for improved regulations, including monitoring of the access to clinics so that emergency personnel can enter buildings is

what is there to fear from complying with the law? if laws are enacted in order to protect the health of patients and the health of patients come to protect really practitioners as well by providing them with the proper conditions to practice in, what is there to fear in this circumstance? the question really is to what extent are we willing to surrender state's ability to regulate laws regarding the provision of medical care? finally the fact that the state does have an interest in protecting unborn life is not acknowledged in this particular bill. there's a mention of unfortunate at all despite the fact the purpose of the bill is to eliminate most relations or prescriptions on abortion but the supreme court has recognized since roe v. wade the state has an interest in potentiality

of unborn life for the pregnancy. is because unborn children and their mothers are affordable to injury, exploitation and social disadvantage. we care about whether a nurse was mixing chemotherapy as exposing her fetus to potentially carcinogenic or strategy in drugs. is alleged to be interested when pregnancy begins but if we did with that pregnancy begins at conception, rather than at implantation which is our standard medical definition, we need to begin to consider how to best protect the fetus at early gestational ages. similarly we are pushing back boundaries of neonatal viability. this bill does not take into account the scientific advances because it removes restrictions on abortion at various gestational ages. so my conclusion, i would like to say that s. 1696 is a measure that seeks to overturn long-standing state restrictions on abortion that is support in the course but it ignores not only wireless for policies and scientific evidence but prior to

the supreme court ruling and clearly targets state relations which would protect the health of our most notable citizens, pregnant women and their unborn children all access does not equal. zip codes do matter because we want patient's zip codes to provide practitioners with an ad zip codes to provide care that is sensitive, affordable, comprehensive and competent. thank you. >> thank you, dr. chireau. dr. parker. >> good morning senators. i consider it a real privilege to speak before the panel display but my name is dr. willie parker and i've had to offer testimony in support of the women's health protection act. i have devoted my whole career to helping women to have the families that they want by providing them with prenatal care and delivering their babies as well as providing them with medically accurate sex education, contraception and when they need it, save abortion care. if there's a war to defend the right to save a legal abortion, and mississippi were i practice is on the front line.

estate riesling pass laws restricting the provision of abortion to obstetrician, gynecologists and those with hospital admitting privileges. this law which is completely medically unnecessary would shut down the one women clinic in that state, and thereby would effectively deny women in the state access to abortion. on top of this the state also has mandated delays that are both costly and burdensome to the women seeking care. a woman's access shouldn't be denied to her so because she lives in the city mississippi or anywhere else for that matter. the thing that should determine the care that woman receives, he shall be determined by medical evidence and not by her zip code. the proponents of these laws would say that they're protecting the health of women and their within the right to believe that but the truth would suggest otherwise. here are the facts in mississippi. there are far too many teenage an unattended a pregnancy rates, there are far too many -- infant mortality and maternal mortality

rates are really too high and far, far too many mississippians live in abject poverty. these realities confront everyone whether she has an undesired pregnancy or and wanted but fatally flawed one. what women in mississippi and it is safe, compassionate medical care and that need is urgent. that care should include abortion. because of these facts i may what i consider to be the moral decision to provide abortion care in the state. invariably, given the climate around abortion in this country, i field questions from people regarding that decision, and the most frequent as question is why? why do you do this? the short answer is, because if i don't, who is going to do it? if women in mississippi and states surrounding can find a way to travel from rural areas under hostile circumstances to access the abortion care that they're entitled to do, and i made a personal decision that i wanted to be someone there to be at the clinic when they came.

one patient i often think of as i think about the work that i do is one of the frustrations i took care of in mississippi who was a 35 year-old pregnant woman with five children. the youngest of whom had recently died the year before from cancer. this woman found herself with an unplanned pregnancy and she confided in me that at this particular point in her life she couldn't care for another child either economically or emotional. she had traveled some distance to come to the mandated counseling that she was to receive. while she was completely resolute when she walked in the door and knew what was best for her and her family, she was still required to be delayed in her decision for political reasons that had nothing to do with her or her medical care. of the woman that i saw on that same day were returning for the procedure after having made the mandated weight and the recently completed a second trip from hours away to receive their care. these women made it to the clinic despite distance, working

consideration, childcare obligations and travel costs. these women typify the hardships that mississippi women and other women around the country face as they endure the barriers created by the present laws. in the 20 for years i practice medicine i've learned a few things and this is what i can tell you. every patient is unique. every woman is different and what comes to abortion, everyone of them is grappling with a dilemma. i'd define the limit as in which one has to make a decision between two undesirable outcomes and yet one does not have the luxury of not making that decision. while the storie stories of thei see my different from what they all have in common is that for them it is increasingly difficult for them to access abortion. so as i said earlier, people ask me why do you do it? well, i think the answer is very simple. i want for women what a want for myself. i want a life of dignity, good health, self-determination, and i want the opportunity to excel and country but in a manner that

address can. we know that when women have access to abortion, contraception, and medically accurate sex education and they thrive in just the manners i mentioned. it should be the same for all women know matter where they live. because the ability to live the life you imagine should not be limited by her zip code. thank you. >> thank you, doctor parker. >> thank you, senator grassley and members, thank you for committee i think that's a. i am carol tobias compress of the national right to life committee and in rlc as a nationwide federation of 50 affiliated right to life organizations. 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 protections 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 his 1980 ruling in harris versus mcrae upholding the u.s. supreme court said abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the 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 bomb a full sharing argued 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 a life or death decisions. in contrast, the drafters of s. 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, elective abortion would become of the procedure that must always be facilitated, never delayed, never in beaded 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 unborn children 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 purchase but in abortion, which about three force of the people support and which the great majority of states have enacted. laws requiring that information be provided regarding

alternative to abortion which 88% of the public supported in a gallup poll. .. >> the same would be true of any lw that is not abortion specific, but has the effect of claimed

effect of reducing access to abortion. it is apparent that those who crafted this bill believe that where 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. but in the spirit of pro-choice, how about giving the senate a choice as well. on may 13th, senator graham proposed an agreement under which s. 1695 would receive a full vote of the senate along with a separate vote on the unborn child protection act which has 41 cosponsors.

the unborn child protection act would protect children in the sixth month and later with narrow exceptions. by this stage in their development, if not sooner, there is abundant evidence that unborn babies will experience great pain as their arms and legs are wrenched off by brute force in the common second trimester dismemberment procedure known as d and e. mr. chairman, in your response to senator graham's proposal, you made clear your opposition to his bill, but you 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, and i hope they will be considered. this issue deserves to be before this body, end of quote. we agree. we challenge you and 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. 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, ms. tobias. ms. taylor. >> thank you so much. good morning. my name is chris taylor, and i am the state representative from the great state of. i so appreciate the opportunity, chairman blumenthal, to testify in strong support of the women's health protection act, and i thank ranking member grassley and committee members for this opportunity today. i also want to thank my senator, tammy baldwin, whom we are very proud of in wisconsin, for leading the way in cosponsoring this important bill. i am also the former public policy director for planned parenthood of wisconsin. i have over a decade of monitoring, advocating for and attempting to get passed good public policy on reproductive health care. there is a consensus in wisconsin about what we want the state legislature to focus on,

and 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 has not been the focus over the last three years, and wisconsin has become one of the many battleground states where fights over a woman's ability to access abortion care are being waged. we have only a few health centers in wisconsin that provide abortions, and we have over a dozen abortion restrictions that have nothing to do with the 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 safe, legal abortion 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 have seen a proliferation of abortion restrictions in wisconsin including restrictions on medication abortion, banning telemedicine and requiring physicians to perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of their practices. we also have a forced ultrasound bill. the hospital admitting privileges mandate is only imposed on physicians who provide abortions. i am very fortunate to serve on the health committee in the state assembly. there was no medical evidence or testimony presented that the admitting privileges status of a women's abortion provider -- [inaudible] of women who have abortions. in fact, there was no health care provider or health care organization who advocated 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 and places an unneeded and unprecedented burden on wisconsin physicians and women. the effect of the hospital admitting privileges law is going to be to shut down one of four health centers that provides abortions, because the two physicians at this center are ineligible 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, there are delays of three to four weeks to obtain an abortion in wisconsin. with the closure of this clinic, those delays would be extended to eight to ten weeks. finally, we would have no health care provider providing abortions post-18 weeks, so women who have complications or tragedies in pregnancy past 18 weeks are going to have 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 uncompensated work time and travel costs. so for poor women, these additional barriers may be insurmountable. the same law that requires admitting privileges also forces a woman seeking abortion to undergo an ultrasound 24 hours before the procedure. the provider must also describe and display the image to the woman. this is the humiliating and degrading law that i have seen in wisconsin. it is certainly the government at its big and most intrusive. women are not able to refuse in most cases what is an invasive vaginal ultra sound. physicalses have no -- physicians have no ability to tailor their medical care to the unique situation of each individual woman or adopt the best standard of care. the medical community in wisconsin also vocally opposed this restriction. they said that the mandatory performance of an ultrasound

before an abortion is not an accepted medical practice or standard of care. this practice does not add to the quality or safety of the medical care being provided. simply put, ultrasounds are being used as political bludgeons. unfortunately, my republican colleagues didn't listen to the wisconsin medical community, they didn't listen to their own democratic colleagues. we have 18 women in my caucus, in my democratic caucus. as we talked about this issue prior to the debate, we realized we all had our own experiences that caused us to make very personal decisions about reproductive health care. we had members who had experienced pregnancy loss, miscarriage, stillbirth, high risk pregnancies and sexual assault, and we're just a microcosm of all the women in wisconsin who we represent. we decided that though we might be ignored by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that 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 as a legislator to dictate the most personal, private decisions of my constituents. i have no business as a legislator dictating medical practices to a physician who's ethically obligated to provide the best care for women and patients. but i am in the business of insuring that the people in my district, the people i represent, are able to exercise their most fundamental personal decisions about their lives. as it stands, with states legislating away those rights we need the wisconsin -- the 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 our witnesses. i'm going to ask without objection that all of your full statements be entered in the record along with a statement from our colleague, senator feinstein. and to begin the questioning, we

have a number of our colleagues who have votes at noon, so we'll try to move along as quickly as we can. ms. northup, there have been some very dismaying and sweeping claims about the breadth of this proposed legislation, ms. tobias referred to it as the abortion without limits act. in fact, it is narrowly targeted to certain kinds of, in effect, bogus 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 the this legislation, the fact, for example, that 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, it sets medically-comparable procedures as the criteria for preventing certain kinds of bars to access to abortion services. could you speak to that issue? >> yes, senator blumenthal, thank you for that question, because i think we did hear a lot this morning about the alleged sweep of this 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 defied in many ways. i would definitely commend to everyone's reading the testimony 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 organizations to which the vast majority of ob/gyns 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 s. 1696, the women's health protection act. and they do so because from a scientific and medical perspective, these laws are not warranted. and i think what's really critical about the bill, which you pointed out, senator, 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's going to be struck. so that's the starting point. secondly, if there is a substantial safety basis for the regulations, well, then it's not a law that is unwarranted. that law will stand. so if it's treating similar medical procedures similarly, if it actually advances a safety basis, then that law is going to stand. and i think that's important,

and there are factors that courts would look at in that, but that's what's really critical, if it's a true safety law, if it's not about singling out abortion provision for the motive of shutting down clinics, then that law stands. >> in fact, a number of the supposed regulations that have been claimed to be struck down by this legislation, the act specifically says would not be affected. for example, funding or insurance or parental consent, other kinds of regulations that are now on 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 from being passed as a matter of statute as opposed to simply having the

jurisprudential work its way? >> well, we're here today because we've just 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 constitution guarantees them. so i think it's important that it be made clear what kind of these is already on record. as i said, the american medical association, courts finding many of these laws unconstitutional. it shouldn't be a charade every year where women are under threat of losing access to is services. and we need to make sure that we have strong protections, because what's happening right now -- we talked about texas which will go down to ten clinics in september if that law goes into effect, we've talked about mississippi, doctor 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 we competency, but bd on their 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, that we don't have this happen every year and that women can be assured that wherever they live that their personal, private decision is going to to be respected. >> while they're on the books, they have a very practical impact on women's lives and a very severely restrictive impact on their legal rights and a very invasive and intrusive consequence for their exercise be of personal choice -- 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? >> well, 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 commented the testimony that has been filed by the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists where they oppose those. it's also the case that the american medical association and acog in a brief in the fifth 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 and acog talk about in this their briefs -- a safe, 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. 17,000 patients were seen in that clinic in ten years.

and not one of those had to be taken to a hospital or transferred by the clinic. so that's, these laws are unwarranted, and they're unfair, and i know that many of us here disagree about the constitutional issue 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 law. it's unfair, it's undemocratic, and it's unconstitutional. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. all of the documents that you referenced will be made a part of our record without objection. senator grassley. >> yeah. ms. tobias, you heard me mention kermit -- [inaudible] in my opening statement. we have the grand jury report reconstructing how he had been engaged in an enterprise to kill

babies, even violate the law. and i think, obviously, violating the trust of his patients. state laws were in place in that state, but as the grand jury report says, authorities didn't do inspections for fear it would be seen as, quote-unquote, putting barriers up to women seeking abortions. so my question, wouldn't 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 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 to help determine whether or not it impedes access to abortion is allowing the abortion provider

to determine, you know, whether or not the new law or any law would impede his ability to render services. so, yes, abortionists like kermit would be able to continue to practice, to set up shops. actually, we did see that many of the state health departments decided after hearing about him and realizing that they as well as pennsylvania had not done any kind of inspection of the clinics, went in and started doing them, and they were finding some horrible situations, and some clinics have been shut down because of that. but this law would say that if the, a law is specific to abortion, it's invalid or if it would impede access to abortion. and then even then from there it has to go on to whether or not the state can prove that it's going to improve access for women, health benefits for women. and even then if it would be

yes, the narrowest means possible, 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 the woman. some states also require abortion providers to have admitting privileges to hospitals. first of all, do you agree with the laws, and then secondly, could you elaborate on why they make sense in your expert medical opinion and tradition? >> yes, thank you for the question. so all too often, and this has been my experience as a practitioner, abortion complication, when abortion complications occur, patients are told to present to the emergency room. they're not given any

documentation, no one is told what was done and what the complications were. this has happened to me in practice. a patient under, experienced perfect ration of her uterus -- perforation of her uterus, and i called the abortionist and asked why did you do this? you knew that you perforated her at the time. and essentially, what he told me was that he knew that he did it, but that he didn't want to send her to the emergency room. and i said that's really mal practice. that's not appropriate. and, again, his response with, well, she started moving. i said, that's your issue. if the patient is moving during a procedure, that is your issue. you should be performing a procedure in such a way that it's comfortable. but to get 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 are caring for a patient, you need to be able to follow up on the complications of that procedure. that is a surgical maxim.

as an ob/gyn or whatever surgical specialty you happen to be in. you need to take responsibility for that patient if they have a complication to either admit them to the hospital and care for them yourself or arrange for transfer to the hospital so that that patient can be taken care of. transfer agreements are very important because they provide for continuity of care. and this is why i believe that physicians, a, need to have admitting privileges and, b, need to be hoe candidated within a hospital -- located within a hospital so the patients can be managed. so there are a couple of issue is here. number one, admitting privileges imply a level of competence in clinical practice on the part of physicians. if physicians cannot obtain admitting privileges, there are reasons why, and that's why peer review is generally the rule when patients are applying for privileges. when physicians cannot get privileges, it is most up because there are issues of competence, they have a trail in their background of malpractice

events that causes the, their peers at the hospital to say this person's not someone we want the to be on the medical staff. hospital credentialing protects patients. hospital credentialing requires that a physician has demonstrated competence in doing specific procedures and they are not running from medical boards or running from adverse actions on behalf of their licenses. physician-to-physician communications 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 you fumble the handoff, you lose the race. if you fumble the handoff in 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've had excessive numbers of complications, if they have a trail of injured patients and lawsuits, 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, the important issue is being on a hospital staff or being on a medical, part of a medical society implies that you're part of the medical community. if you are outside of that medical community, then clearly something's wrong. there's some other issue going on. i hope i've answered your question. >> senator grassley, excuse me. i have an article by melinda handenberger that talks about

what happens when the abortion industry is allowed to regulate itself. i would like to request -- >> without objection, and senator grassley has some documents he'd like to -- >> yeah. i have 15 different, but i'd just like to mention five. concerned women of america legislative action committee, a group of 30 female state legislators across the country, the association of american physician-surgeons, the american association of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists, and lastly several ob/gyn physicians including john thorpe, north carolina, steven calvin, minnesota and byron calhoun of west virginia. thank you. >> thank you. all those documents will be head a part of the record without -- 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, in 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. now, i do agree that abortion is a different procedure from other medical procedures because its 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 laws 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 concern and as i said in my testimony, that's an issue for one in three women in the united states. that's women in every state, every congressional district, every city and every town. and her health care's important to her. but this bill is about making sure that because state legislatures cannot just blatantly ban abortion which is the desire of some people who finish. finish -- >> right. >> and some states have been pushing that envelope, north

dakota has banned abortion at, essentially, six weeks. it's blatantly unconstitutional. the state in its responsive briefs in the case said they basically thought roe v. wade should be overturned. so you have that battle going on. but you also have this underhanded attempt to do what they can't do by the front door by the back door. and so it is important that you make sure that regulation of abortion is not just about singling out abortion providers, but is actually based on good medical practice and scientific evidence. so the response to even dr. chireau's statement is, look, if outpatient doctors who are doing outpatient surgeries need to have admitting privileges, that's fine, you know? let that be the medical standard that's 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 i do have a question for -- my time is limited. dr. parker, you provide abortion

services in mississippi even if you don't even live there. i understand that you were denied hospital privileges in mississippi, is that correct? >> great to see you again, senator. as you know -- >> aloha. >> -- i used to live in hawaii and enjoyed serving under your leadership. with regard to my decision to travel to mississippi to provide abortion care, it is in part response to the fact that well over 85% of the women live in a county where there is no abortion provider. my decision was based on the fact if nobody easels is going to go, i've got to go. when the regulations changed in the state of mississippi to require hospital privileges, 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. so 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 who simply declined to evaluate my credentials. and i'm not sure why -- >> i think your experience just points 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 imact certain pop belations 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 had been providing good care for a long time to those residents had to close. and, again, it was under those circumstances where the doctors were not allowed to get their privileges. >> thank you. i just have one question for