AED at the Senate Abortion Hearing
Republican leaders are attacking scientific consensus
If you missed yesterday’s Senate committee hearing on abortion rights and the consequences of abortion bans, you can watch it here. I was at the press table, watching pro-abortion Democrats spar with anti-abortion extremists, anti-abortion activists try to present junk science as credible, and anti-abortion Republicans attack the very doctors who are helping reduce the harm of abortion bans. (More on those attacks in the daily report later today.)
The hearing, held by the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) committee, was an offensive move from Senate Democrats to tell voters about the post-Dobbs crisis in care—and to show them where exactly Republicans stand on reproductive health and rights. The hearing comes the same week that Democrats proposed IVF legislation and plan to force Republicans to go on the record with a vote on birth control.
It was also a moment for senators to highlight 2024 messaging around abortion in a presidential election year when GOP candidates are trying their best to avoid the issue. That’s why Republicans on the committee tried to downplay the nightmare we’ve seen since Roe was overturned, accusing their Democratic colleagues of fear-mongering.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, the ranking member of the health committee, for example, said that the hearing was held because “it’s an election year in which a Democratic incumbent president is running behind.”
What also makes this hearing so important right now is that it comes just a few weeks before 2-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision, and the same month we’re expecting to hear from the Supreme Court on two major abortion cases. Soon we’ll know the future of mifepristone access and whether states have to follow EMTALA, the federal law requiring life-saving and stabilizing treatment in hospital emergency rooms.
Tuesday’s hearing represented something else, too: a moment when Republican leaders are attacking scientific consensus, desperate to bolster a “both sides” lie around abortion data and scientific research. The GOP hoped that putting anti-abortion spokespeople side-by-side with actual experts from the medical and scientific communities would lend their ‘experts’ credibility.
On one side were extremists relaying debunked science about abortion complications; on the other, OBGYNs underscoring medical standards backed by research expertise, quality data, and verified studies showing how medically necessary (and safe) abortion is.
These pro-abortion experts laid out how much of a crisis abortion restrictions bring to the health and well-being of patients, and the extreme distress doctors are facing. At one point Dr. Allison Linton, Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, described the harrowing questions doctors in her state are forced to consider when faced with abortion restrictions. (Read her full testimony here.)
“Do I have to wait for a certain amount of blood loss? Do I have to wait for her vital signs to change, or until she needs a blood transfusion, or until she bleeds so much that she can no longer clot her own blood...What about a patient with newly diagnosed breast cancer at eight weeks of pregnancy who cannot start chemotherapy or radiation while she is pregnant? Is delaying her treatment until after delivery a risk to her life? What about a patient with a blood clotting disorder where pregnancy will further increase their risk of a pulmonary embolism or stroke? Is the risk of a blood clot enough, or do I have to wait until the actual stroke occurs? What about a 13 year old who is the victim of incest? Is the psychological and physical trauma of carrying a child in her barely pubescent body enough to justify ending the pregnancy? These are not rhetorical questions. They are real patients that my colleagues and I have encountered and tried to care for in Wisconsin.”
In response, Republicans like Cassidy still tried to laud their witnesses as “chock-full of references and studies” that provide “nuance” to the conversation. (These studies were recently retracted by their publisher for having factually incorrect and misleading data.)
Here’s a reminder of what the GOP considers ‘nuanced’ on abortion:
Republicans’ star AAPLOG witness, Dr. Christina Francis, recommends patients with life-threatening pregnancies be forced into delivery and c-sections rather than abortions. And as Abortion, Every Day reported yesterday, Francis frequently talks on-the-record about how patients should be forced to carry nonviable pregnancies to term, including children.
Perhaps the most telling moment of the hearing, though, was when Francis refused to answer questions from Sen. Patty Murray about birth control.
The fact that Francis admitted that she and her group believe that IUDs and emergency contraception are ‘abortifacients’ is important. This is the person that the GOP presented as representative of their position on reproductive rights!
These folks are the mouthpiece for the movement. They give testimony before representatives, they’re cited in Supreme Court briefings, they’ve served as advisors to state and federal agencies, and they have serious influence among political leaders. By putting their false studies, fabricated data and fake science on the record, they are creating a pathway to move the needle on what Republicans need to justify further abortion bans—and the cruelty that always comes after.
Something else telling: Ironically, once the hearing heated up, Republican senators on the committee barely used their own witnesses. Instead, they went after the pro-abortion OGBYNs on the panel throughout the hearing, blaming the post-Dobbs health crisis on doctors for their interpretations of abortion bans. (This is something Jessica started warning about back in 2022.)
The audience inside the hearing room was electric during the palpably tense moments between Senators and witnesses. You could feel how much they were paying attention to every word.
Despite Republicans’ attacks, the OBGYNs were, in a word, outstanding. They didn’t take lawmakers’ bait, kept their cool, and explained clearly and calmly why abortion is vital healthcare. As the doctors underscored over and over again, they trust their patients to make the right decision for themselves, no matter the circumstance.
Yet as incredible as these doctors were, there’s no discounting the power of anti-abortion lies and junk science.
Dr. Nisha Verma, a Georgia fellow at the Physicians for Reproductive Health, for example, described “how dangerous misinformation about the practice of medicine is for our patients, for physicians.” Not only does mis- and disinformation put providers’ lives in danger, we’re watching as abortion medication and medical judgment are attacked at the highest levels of government, with court decisions repeatedly adopting anti-abortion junk science.
And it’s the people like the ones Republicans brought yesterday who the anti-abortion movement uses to justify litigation and legislation that attack access and ban abortion.
As I watched the hearing, what stood out to me was how many people come out again and again to show their support for abortion. I wish I could have shown you the lines to get into the hearing room and how far it extended inside the Capitol Complex. It was heartening to see just how many people care about this.
Interacting with the community here at Abortion, Every Day shows us how deeply people care about this issue—and it makes it all the more exciting to see it out in the world.
I cannot AT ALL fathom the thinking or rationale behind wanting a women to go through labor just to deliver an already dead baby. Just to have an "intact fetal body"? Like, WTF? If a woman's pregnancy is already not viable, then she should be given the best treatment possible for her own health.
I’ve been thinking a lot ever since the Texas Supreme Court came out with its recent ruling that essentially said the Texas abortion law is fine, it’s the doctors who are at fault for jeopardizing the health of women, which sounds like what they were pushing in this hearing too. It’s a fascinating argument. In the Texas lawsuit it means at least 20 different doctors, 20 different hospitals and 20 different legal teams all came up with the wrong answer. Seems odd that that many well educated people could get it wrong. Is the next step suing for malpractice? Which will just mean more doctors leave the state. It just makes me sick.