The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. I'm a doc. When you're a doctor, you're supposed to take care of your patient. When someone is pregnant, there are two patients.
Both must be considered with absolute care and concern. And scientifically and morally, there's no difference in the value of a child whether she is in her mother's arms or she is in her mother's womb. And the science is clear. Life
begins at conception and abortion ends that life. Now, we can't dehumanize the conversation and we shouldn't normalize the ending of that life. Not normalizing a procedure whose intent is to end a life. I want to highlight the March for
Life next week in Washington. Around the country, uh for decades, every January, thousands of Americans, very young and old, begin the new year by joining together to march and peacefully call attention to the sanctity and inherent
value of every single life. And so for those of you who will march in the weeks ahead, thank you. We're here to represent your passion and your action to protect women and their unborn child. We'll hear testimony today about the dangers of meopristone, the chemical
abortion drug. Now, these drugs are not safe run-of-the-mill drugs. They're certainly not safe for the unborn child, but there can also be potential complications for the mother. And so, here are the facts. One study showed that nine and 10 women who take a chemical abortion drug described their
pain as moderate to severe and half of women say the experience was worse than expected. Another study found that one in 10 women taking me for prestoneone experience serious adverse events including hemorrhaging, bleeding, sepsis, overwhelming infection um or
just kind of infection but less overwhelming. These are not about statistics. It's about real women with real stories. We need to humanize this. A woman named Saleom described feeling like her insides were being quote torn
and sliced apart and quote seeing blood all over my legs. Like many, Saleom regretted her abortion, saying, quote, I saw the most heartbreaking thing that I've seen in my t in my entire life. I
saw my child, and it was at that moment that it sunk in properly that I really have been pregnant. I've been carrying the life that I created inside of me until that very moment. I couldn't believe what I was looking at. It was
the most beautiful thing that I'd ever created and I destroyed it. Another woman named Chenise described the cramps as unbearable, saying that it quote felt like somebody stabbing me in my stomach. Chenise ended up going into sepsis because the abortion drugs left some of
the unborn's child's remains inside her. After two months hospitalization and a partial hysterctomy, she had to relearn to walk and perform normal everyday activities. So, how do we get here to the point where abortion pills can be ordered online, mailed, taken with no
medical supervision, and we have no safeguards against coercion? It started when the Obama administration's FDA, pursuing an agenda, removed requirements to report non-fatal adverse events, effectively no longer monitoring the drug safety. Now,
who could be opposed to making sure that adverse events are reported to the FDA? We make so much out of somebody getting a vaccine and having a sore arm that lasts for a day where they got the shot, but we're not reporting when someone has sepsis. Then the Biden administration removed
the in-person dispensing requirement, which protected women having abortions from serious medical complications. It's only through a proper medical exam that a doctor can determine the baby's gestational age, ensure the woman does not have an ectopic pregnancy, and be
sure the abortion will not jeopardize future fertility. Now, I'm a doc. The first rule is do no harm. The way things are working here today, it has a lot of potential to do a lot of harm. The in-person requirement I feel passionate
about. Again, prescribing a drug with potential complications with no in-person requirement. It means that a medical professional who's trained to spot abuse, to protect a woman from
being coerced, can actually interview the patient and find out if she really willingly wishes to take this. And now, now under the current situation, and we'll hear these stories today, someone can order the pill and coers the
pregnant woman into taking them. It's straight to their mailbox, no questions asked, and then they coers the woman to take it. That is wrong. We should all be concerned about that, whether you're pro-life or pro-choice. Think of the women, the girls in abusive
relationships, being trafficked, whose voices being silent. And it just struck me. I was in a Southwest Airline bathroom. I'm a gastroenterenterologist. Sometimes I go there in my thoughts. And as I looked at the sign on the door of the bathroom, it said, "If you're being
trafficked, tell the flight attendant or call this number." Now, tip of the hat to Southwest and maybe the other airlines, I've just never noticed a sign before. They know that someone may be traveling to some place like a Super Bowl to get trafficked. And yet we make
these appropriate appropriate efforts to protect the young person in this situation. But we don't require the inpatient interview in which a physician can ask the young person, "Wait a second. Do you really want this
or not? And if you don't, tell me about it. Wait, you're being trafficked? We're calling the police. Why do we have it on the inside of a bathroom on an airplane?" but not as a requirement for something which is
mailed through which is mailed. As chairman of the help committee, I urge Secretary Kennedy and Commissioner McCari to complete the safety review of Mr. Mifa Presstone that they both promised us during their confirmation hearings. Republican members of this
committee and many other senators expect an answer. At an absolute minimum, the previous in-person safeguards should be restored and it should be done immediately. By the way, it's not just Republicans who say this. A recent poll
that 71% of Americans, including 67% of those who identify as pro-choice, support requiring a visit for the chemical abortion drug to be prescribed. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Merl will share some real life stories of women
and girls coerced or drugged with the abortion pill. She's holding those violating our state's strong pro-life laws accountable and working to protect these women. Dr. Monique Wubenhorse will provide medical expertise and further insight into the dangers that abortion
pills pose to to these women. and she'll dispel the false narrative that treatment for miscarriage, still birth, and ectopic pregnancy is the same as an abortion. It's an honor to convene the help committee for our first hearing of the year to discuss such an important topic. Women, families, and unborn
children deserve nothing less. And with that, I recognize ranking member Sanders. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In a few minutes, I'm going to hand the mic over to Senator Patty Murray, who has been a national leader on this subject. But first uh let me be as clear as I can be.
This hearing is not about the safety and effectiveness of me pristone. It is not about protecting the health and well-being of women. The overwhelming evidence from the scientific and medical community is clear and it is unambiguous.
Mristone is safe. It is effective and not only has it been proven to safely end the pregnancy, it has been used by women throughout this country and the world to effectively manage a miscarriage. That's not what Bernie
Sanders's position is. That's what hundreds of clinical trials and studies in prominent medical journals have found for nearly three decades. That's what the American College of Obstitricians and Gynecologists, the largest
organizations of OBGYNS in America, has found. That's not my view. It's not Patty Murray's view. That's their view. That's what the American Medical Association representing over 270,000
doctors have found. That's what the FDA has found for more than a quarter of a century after it approved me prese in the year 2000. Let's be clear about what this hearing is about. It's not the safety of a drug.
It is about the ongoing effort of my friends in the Republican party to deny the women of this country the basic right to control their own bodies. That is what this hearing is about. Four
years ago, six Supreme Court justices, all nominated by Republican presidents, decided to overturn Roie Wade, abolish the constitutional right for women to have an abortion, and give politicians in state governments all over this
country the right to control a woman's body. Since this disastrous Supreme Court decision, 13 states have enacted a total abortion ban and 28 states have restricted access to map pristone.
That is what this hearing is about. It's whether in the year 2026 we're going to fight to make sure that women have a right to control their bodies or whether politicians take away those rights. Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Chairman S or Ranking Member
Sanders for letting me speak on an issue I care deeply about. The fact of the matter is medication abortion is safe and effective and we have known that for a very long time. FDA had the data to show this when they first approved my
pristone 25 years ago and its safety was reaffirmed when FDA approved a generic version of this last fall. We have a tremendous amount of data showing how safe this medication is. More than 160
high quality studies have been conducted and millions of women around the world use methapristone safely every year with fewer complications by the way than Viagra or penicellin. The fact of the matter is mephipristone is one of the
most studied medications we have. In fact, in October, a federal court ruled that FDA's current restrictions on methapristone are illogical and unsupported by the evidence. The only reason my methapristone is regulated as
heavily as it already is, is because of anti-abortion politics, not because of science. And now Republicans are holding this hearing to pedal debunked junk studies by anti-abortion organizations which have no credibility and have been
forcefully condemned to act by actual medical organizations to justify reinstating more burdensome requirements and ultimately ripping medication abortion off the shelves entirely. We all know this hearing is not about the
actual science or the facts. And it's certainly not about what is best for women's health. This hearing really is about the fact that Trump and his anti-abortion allies want to ban abortion nationwide and medication abortion is the most common method of
abortion in the US. Republicans are furious that despite their extreme abortion bans, some women are still finding ways to get the care that they need and they want to put a stop to it, whatever it takes. Of course, the overwhelming majority of people in this
country do not want medication abortion ripped away and they do not want Republicans legislating their pregnancies. And I think most people are going to see right through the utter BS that is being staged here today. I also have to say I'm stunned that Republicans
found time to hold this sham hearing when they have yet to have any held any sort of hearing holding RFK Jr. to account for undermining access to safe and effective vaccines and letting deadly diseases like measles and whooping cough rip through our
communities. Wasn't he supposed to be here quarterly? Wasn't he supposed to leave the vaccine schedule alone? And isn't this committee supposed to be conducting oversight? It seems that we will have a hearing on literally anything but that. I want to, Mr. Chair,
ask unanimous consent to enter into the record eight statements from leading organizations on the safety of meristone and a letter sent by every single Senate Democrat last fall pressing FDA for answers on this new so-called safety review of methristone. We have not yet
received an answer to that letter. Without objection, it's my pleasure now to introduce Louisiana Attorney General Liz Mural. Attorney General Mural has a distinguished career in public service and has been at the forefront of defending Louisiana's strong pro-life
laws and protecting women and unborn children. She'll be to testifying today about how the removal of the in-person dispensing requirement for meriststone has led to horrific instances of coercion and health risk for women and will walk us through the action she is
taking to hold those seeking to circumvent Louisiana's laws accountable. Attorney General Mural Louisiana is lucky to have you as our top law enforcement officer. I look forward to hearing your testimony. But before you begin, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from
17 state attorney generals in support of Attorney General Mural's testimony and advocating against the use of shield laws in connection with the chemical abortion drugs. Without objection, it's approved. Senator Miss Mural. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee. The United States Supreme Court returned the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives in DOS v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. That landmark decision empowered Louisiana and every other state to
decide how to address the issue of abortion. Louisiana made its overwhelmingly bipartisan decision and reaffirmed its longstanding policy to the right to life of every child born and unborn. Louisiana's protections
include a prohibition on abortion, quote, by means of an abortion inducing drug. And it's likewi it likewise prohibits aiding and abetting and facilitating in the procurement, distribution or use of such drugs. That should have been the end of it. But the
Biden administration and its pro-abortion partners had long been planning to circumvent DOBS. After DOBS, the Biden FDA promptly announced that it would remove the in-person dispensing requirement for abortion pills, thereby authorizing methopristone to be shipped
nationwide by mail. This was not a medically informed decision, but a purely political one. It was not even a legal one because federal law prohibits distribution by mail. President Biden recommitted to quote doing everything in
his power to protect access to abortion. To that end, he issued multiple executive orders and ignoring federal law directed HHS Secretary Xavier Basera to identify quote ways to ensure that myopristone is as widely accessible as
possible including when prescribed through teleaalth and sent by mail. This culminated in the FDA revising the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy rims protocols in 2023 for MIFAristone
removing datadriven restrictions that previously required in-person dispensing which for health and safety reasons mandated mythopristone this is a quote be dispensed only in certain health care settings specifically clinics medical
offices and hospitals. Its elimination facilitated widespread dispensing of methopristone through the mail. This is medically dangerous, unethical, and illegal in Louisiana and many states as well as federal law. The Biden rims
revision worked as planned. Aid Access, perhaps most well-known among the illegal abortion pill distribution facilitators, unabashedly credits removal of the in-person dispensing for its ability to mail FDA approved abortion drugs, quote, to people in all
50 states, even those that have banned it," unquote. To be clear, removing these protections under REIMs did not and could not legalize distribution of these pills by mail. So, the Biden administration's objectives, as directly
stated by the president, were to facilitate illegal drug distribution. Indeed, abortions have tragically increased in Louisiana and other pro-life states since DOBS became uh be since DOBS because of the Biden
administration's actions. Data from pro-abortion advocacy groups indicate 900 illegal abortions occurred per month in Louisiana in 2025. That trend coincides with national reported data. Behind these statistics
is a woman or girl injured by this dangerous, illegal, and medically unsupervised distribution and use of abortion pills. A few examples from Louisiana include a woman who was coerced to abort her wanted baby.
multiple elements of that by partners or parents. A pregnant woman who took pills that Margaret Carpenter from New York mailed to her at 20 weeks gestation and ended up in the emergency room while her baby was left in a dumpster. Another
20week old pregnancy uh the baby was found recovered in a toilet. Activists have created an organized and dangerous scheme of drug dealing protected by politicians. These are not medical standards. There are no medical
standards in any state that sanction such irresponsible actions by a medical professional. And political preferences do not justify placing women at such medical risk. These are not medical prot professionals and this is not health
care. Shield laws in some states protect providers from liability and effectively nullify laws in other states. Their purpose is to make it more difficult to sue or prosecute individuals in those states where abortion drugs are
prohibited. They also make it more difficult for women coerced into abortion taking abortion drugs to bring their abusers to justice. The Biden FDA's removal of in-person dispensing requirements had its intended effect.
But for the 2023 rims, activists could not blanket our states like Louisiana with methapristone by mail. The 2023 rims must be vacated. Until then, Louisiana's efforts to protect mothers and their unborn children and to hold
outofstate abortion pill traffickers accountable for the harm they inflict will be all but feudal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Before introducing Dr. Ubenhorse, who will get the award for the most interesting name this entire year, I ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record letters from the Louisiana Family Forum and Louisiana Right to Life. Both letters further underscore Attorney General Murals's testimony about the harms that unfettered access to male order chemical abortion drugs cause women in our state. And I now turn
to Senator Banks to introduce Dr. Wubenhorst. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my pleasure to introduce Dr. Mon'nique Wubenhorst, a practicing board certified OBGYn with more than 30 years of experience in patient care, teaching,
research, health policy, and global health. Dr. Wibman Horse is a senior fellow with the Dicola Center for Ethics and Culture at Notre Dame and an adjunct professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine. She also cares for
patients at two Indiana hospitals. In her medical practice, Dr. When Horse is focused on providing OBGYn care to impoverished women at home and abroad. She has also authored over 20 peer-reviewed articles and has served on
review boards for peer-reviewed medical journals. Dr. Ruben Horse, thank you for being here today and I look forward to hearing your testimony on the dangers that chemical abortion pills pose to women especially. It's great to have a hooer here uh who is such a staunch
defender for the unborn and for women. Thank you, m Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I think it's really important and I'm I'm glad that you called this hearing. I appreciate your leadership. With that, I yield back. >> Thank you, Senator Banks. And we're excited about Indiana football. Go
Hoosiers. So, uh, so abortion is a subject of intense interest. Um, and good morning, uh, excuse me, uh, good morning, Chairman Cassidy, Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders. >> Dr. Can you pull the microphone a little bit closer to your mouth? >> How's that? >> Wonderful. Uh, ranking members Sanders
and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. It is uh an honor. Abortion is a subject of intense interest, debate, and legislative action and so we need to give grave consideration to its risks and purported benefits. Miferristol is now the predominant method of abortion
accounting for accounting for almost 60% of abortions in 2022 and we now have data to document and examine negative outcomes associated with the use of chemical abortion. uh we all know that the uh regimen includes both mephrristone and misoprosttol and this
is associated with significant short and long-term physical uh and mental health harms to women. These are documented by international studies as well as studies in the United States including studies in the Scandinavian countries which are not pro-life countries. Uh the different
risks that are associated are bleeding, infection, hemorrhage, need for transfusion and perforation. Now, while perforation is not a risk with chemical abortion alone, an estimated 6% or one in 17 women will require surgical intervention and there these women are exposed to both the
risks of chemical and surgical abortion. In the UK, an estimated 10,000 women per year were treated in emergency rooms in 2022 and 23 for complications arising from an abortion. Another risk is undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy. There have recently been documented deaths
from uh chemical abortion. Uh abortion in general inclone misoprosttol is associated with serious psychological and social harms for women. A recent study in Canada by Dr. Augur and her
colleagues um found that it marketkedly increased the risk for inpatient psychiatric admission the most severe form uh diagnosed forms of uh mental health. It is also associated with sex trafficking, child sex abuse, and domestic violence. I'm aware of a case of a young girl who is aged 16 who came
in with severe sepsis to the emergency room when queried about what was the cause of her missed abortion. It turned out that she had been given abortion pills by her teacher who gave them to her in skiptown uh presumably to do the same thing to another one of his
students. Um and abort abusers have been known to uh force abortion pills down women's throats, put them in their drinks and insert them into their bodies. My pristone misoprostyl and is mephristone is not safer than Tylenol and should not be made available over the counter. Tylenol is an
over-the-counter medication. It does not have a blackbox warning. Most problems with Tylenol are associated with accidental or deliberate overdose. Mephrristone uh side effects are associated with routine prescribed use. Elective uh abortion is intentional
feticide. It is not the same as care for an ectopic pregnancy which is treatment to save a mother's life. It is not the same as care for an inuterero demise where the fetus is already demised. And it is not the same as care for miscarriage. Abortion in African-American women is a
pervasive problem. There's a remarkable racial disparity in abortion rates between African-American European women in many states. In particular, um in some states, approximately the rates are three to five times of abortion comp in
black women compared with white women. The practice of standard tele medicine is highly regulated and therefore the prescribing of abortification drugs virtually should not be legitimized by calling it tele medicine. This is more properly called remote abortion. Um in
the these cases a woman cannot have her pregnancy accurately dated. The woman cannot be assessed medically. Oh sorry. Um I would like to conclude by stating that uh our concern is for the uh woman and access to any medical
intervention should never come at the expense of safety. authorities should continue to help decrease chemical abortions harms to women including through strengthening the rems and enforcement of existing regulations such as the comtock act. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Dr. Wubman Horson. Dr. Sand
Senator Sanders will now introduce his witness. >> Thank you. Uh I'd like to introduce Dr. Nisha Verma who is an obstitrician and gynecologist and a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. Dr. Verma practices in both Massachusetts and Georgia and has conducted research
on the impacts of abortion restrictions on women with high- risk pregnancies. Dr. Verma, thanks very much for being with us today. Good morning, Chair Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and distinguished members of the Senate Health Committee.
My name is Dr. Nisha Verma, and I am a double board certified fellowship trained obstatrician and gynecologist and fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. I provide full spectrum care in Georgia and Massachusetts. That means that I provide everything from papsmears and cancer
screenings to delivering babies to supporting people postpartum um to providing contraception, abortion, and miscarriage care. As a doctor, I know that abortion care can be complicated for many people. I sit with that
complexity every day, as do so many of my patients and their families. Holding space for complexity is important, but discomfort with abortion can't be used as an excuse to distort facts. So, let's talk about the facts. The fact is the
science on my pristry safety and effectiveness is longstanding and settled. Over the past 25 years, medication abortion using myipristone and misoprosttol has been rigorously studied and proven safe and effective in over a 100 highquality peer-reviewed
studies. Extensive data show that medication abortion through teleaalth is equally safe and effective and provides vital access for those who live in rural areas and in the growing number of maternity care deserts in the country. Medication abortion is now the most
common method of abortion care in the United States, used by more than 7.5 million people since its FDA approval in 2000. The small number of studies that contradict this track record of safety are deeply flawed. In fact, two of the
less than 10 have been retracted. When we look to the full body of highquality evidence, it is clear that the safety and effectiveness of my pristone and misoprosttol is not a matter of opinion or debate. It is the clear consensus of
the evidence-based medical community both here in the United States and globally. Leading professional organizations including the American college of obgyns and American medical association affirm this fact as does the
nationalmies of sciences engineering and medicine. Globally the world health organization classifies my pristone and misoprosttol as essential medications among the safest and most effective treatments that should always be available.
In my practice, I regularly prescribe my pristry and misoprostto because I know they are safe and allow my patients to access the highest quality care. When I prescribe these medications, I counsel my patients, ensure they understand their options, review potential side
effects and risks just as I would with any treatment, and support them in making the decisions that are right for them. Miscarriages occur in 10 to 26% of all pregnancies and I often care for women and families experiencing the loss of a
highly desired pregnancy who wish to treat their miscarriage with medication. For these patients, Miffypristone along with misoprosttol speeds up the process, reduces pain and decreases the need for additional treatments. Knowing that my pristry and misoprosttol
are safe and effective for miscarriage management. I took these medications myself a few months ago after my husband and I experienced a devastating pregnancy loss. Luckily in Massachusetts, we were able to obtain these medications from our local pharmacy and complete this very
emotionally difficult process safely, privately, and at home. Unfortunately, for many people, unnecessary restrictions on Miffy Pristone make this evidence-based care unavailable and force them to undergo additional hardship during already heartbreaking
experiences. Miffy pristone and misoprosttol are safe. However, my patients do face many real well doumented threats to their health, well-being, and lives. My patients are at risk because of restrictions on abortion care and cuts
to Medicaid. They are at risk because of decreased funding to clinics that provide preventive care and cancer screenings and fears about whether they can safely go to the hospital based on their immigration status. And they are at risk because of the everinccreasing
crisis of maternal mortality, widespread misinformation about vaccines and disregard of science and evidence. As a doctor, I have the immense privilege of sitting with patients and their families and learning about their lives. My patients remind me every day that
abortion care, pregnancy, and medicine are not isolated political issues. And I chose to be here in this room today, as challenging as it might be for them to honor them. I hope moving forward, this committee will focus on addressing the
many real documented dangers patients face rather than restricting access to safe evidence-based care. Thank you for having me, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. I shall begin with questions. Uh doctors, thank you all very much for seeing patients. I really appreciate
that. Dr. Verma, you mentioned not restricting access to safe evidence-based care. Would you prescribe these drugs for someone at week 20 of her pregnancy? >> Thank you for that question. What we are seeing with some of the cases that have been
>> Would you would you prescribe It's only FDA approved up to week 10. Would you prescribe these drugs for someone who was at week 20 of her pregnancy? >> I would not prescribe them in the way you're describing what we're talking about here.
>> No, please >> let her answer the question. >> No, no, she answered the question. It's not here to It's not here to go beyond answering the question. Bernie, uh, next. Attorney General Mural, you spoke of in your testimony two women
who were prescribed this medicine taking it after week 20. Did I hear that correctly? >> Your your your microphone, please. >> The gestational age as determined by the doctors at the emergency room that treated these women said that the babies
were approximately 20 weeks. Now, >> so yes, >> Dr. Verma suggested that teleaalth is an appropriate way to prescribe this but again if I listen to your testimony carefully and I did you don't have to have a teaalth visit I think you spoke
of just filling out a form online with no history taken did I hear that correctly >> that's correct it's a form that you fill out online there is no human contact >> no human contact >> no human contact and the the paperwork that comes with the pills And we know
this because we we conducted a controlled buy of these pills through this process. The paperwork that you received. We also know this through one of the cases Rosalie Marazich's case. >> Just hold just we know this. >> There's actually some common ground here. Dr. Verma has suggested that it
should be evidence-based and that some sort of human contact is implied. And what I'm hearing from you is that it's being prescribed according to the physician exam who actually examined the patient post loss of the child is that they were gestational week 20 and there
have been no contact necessarily. >> That's correct. This there's no human contact in this process. >> Dr. Rubenhorse is that like standard of care, no human contact to prescribe a medication like this. >> I would say it's not only a standard of care, but it's irresponsible. For
example, if I had a pregnant woman who came in with a bladder infection and I just talked to her on the phone and prescribed an antibiotic, that would be malpractice. >> Okay. Now, Dr. Lubenor, Attorney General Mural, very disturbing,
spoke about women being coerced to have a ch to have a to have this to take these pills. You mentioned it too. Can you comment further on that? Yes, there's substantial evidence in the medical literature that many abortions
are coerced. In addition to that, there are uh published or or um I yes, I would say published 19 cases where uh as I mentioned in my testimony, um boyfriends um abusers forced women to have an
abortion. And so that's just the tip of the iceberg. and Attorney General Mural Tony Clayton the attorney the the the district attorney I think in point cap parish can you describe the case I think it was the mother that forced the young lady to take the pill and there's a complication can you descri
>> her mother her mother she was a she was 16 years old and her mother who had a documented history of severe physical abuse of that same child uh coerced her into taking the pills because she did not want the burden of an added baby uh
the little girl. The young woman had been planning a gender reveal party. And instead of having a gender reveal party, she was undergoing an abortion after her mother supervised saw her take the pills and then abandoned her to abort the baby alone. She panicked and called 911. She
did testify in uh and the mother was indicted and the clinic was indicted and the doctor has been indicted and Governor Kathy Hokll has blocked our extradition of the doctor to hold the doctor accountable for giving the pills to the mother who coerced her daughter
to have an unwanted >> Dr. Dr. Wubenhor you and Dr. Verma spoke about the in-person interview as the opportunity to make sure that someone understood the implications of taking these pills and to make sure they're not
being abused. If that young lady had had an in-person interview, would you have been able to see that it was her mother dictating her course of action and she was being coerced? >> Yes. One of the things that we try to do when we have these inpatient interviews is to sit down with the woman alone
apart from her mother or her boyfriend whoever may be trying to abuse her and to ask these questions. And when I have done this, when women are in an abusive relationship or trafficking, they will say, "You're the first person who's ever asked me about this." And they will disclose.
>> Okay. Thank you, Senator Sanders. >> Thank you. Uh let me ask Dr. Verma simple question. Who do you think is best prepared to determine whether meriststoneone is safe
and effective? Do you think it is members of a state legislature? Do you think it is United States senators? Or do you think uh it should be organizations like the American Medical Association, the American College of
Obstitricians and Gynecologists and doctors and scientists who for decades have studied the issue. >> Thank you for the question. As a doctor, I know that people are capable of making these decisions for themselves. They are the experts on their own lives and can
make these decisions guided by evidence, science, and what's happening in their own lives. >> Uh let me ask you another question. I was interested in what the attorney general said. Uh very simple question. We live in a society where
everybody here talks about freedom, right? We all believe in freedom. Who should make the decision regarding her own body? Should have be a woman, should be the United States Senate, governors, attorney generals. Who should
make that decision? >> People should be able to make decisions for themselves, guided by their fam, you know, supported by their families, guided by evidence and science. And I do want to highlight again some um misinformation that we've been hearing around the source of the some of the
harm that we're seeing right now. Um, a lot of the cases that we're hearing about are a direct result of abortion bans and restrictions. People are desperate because they cannot get the care that they need in their communities with their trusted clinicians and and people in their communities in the way
that they need and that is why we are seeing these cases come up. It is a direct result of abortion bans and restrictions. Access makes people safer. >> Dr. Verma, can you speak for a moment about what happens
when states uh limit access to methipresone? Uh can you talk about what it means in a state like Louisiana and many others if women for whatever reason want to terminate a pregnancy and have no other options? >> Absolutely. limiting access to
meupipristone, misoprosttol, medications that we know are safe and effective takes important evidence-based um treatments away from people. And we're seeing, you mentioned Louisiana, we're seeing Louisiana has now made these medications controlled substances.
Um and we're seeing the dramatic impact that that's having on people that need abortion care, that are experiencing miscarriage is and people that are, for example, having postpartum hemorrhages. I've heard from my colleagues in the state and heard from, for example, the
Department of Public Health in New Orleans has said this is very much harming people in the state. So, for example, when you have a patient that's having a postpartum hemorrhage, I've been in many of these situations as a doctor that provides care on labor and delivery. I need access to those
medications right away. That is a life-threatening emergency. It's one of the leading causes of maternal mortality. I need to be able to access safe medications right away to save that patient's life. And so we're seeing the impact of these restrictions um and and
things limiting access to me pristone misoprosttol not just on patients who need abortion care but a whole range of um care that is life-saving for them. >> If I could ask the attorney general my a brief question. If I understood you
correctly, uh you said that over 900 women uh a month are turning to me for prison. Was I correct in hearing that? >> Uh yes, >> in Louisiana. >> Those are statistics from a pro-abortion advocacy group. >> But you kind of indicated you think that might be in the ballpark.
>> It's the best. It's the only data that we have. >> All right. If a woman in Louisiana turns to meristone because she has no other option or that's the choice, that's 10,000 women a year in Louisiana. What do you tell those women who for whatever
reason, you may agree with it, I may agree with it, we may not, make a decision that for their lives they want to terminate a pregnancy. What do you say to 10,000 women in Louisiana a year? Do you think they have the right to make that choice or do they not? Senator
Sanders, the the policy decision of the of overwhelmingly bipartisan legislature in Louisiana has enacted laws to protect the women of Louisiana. And and I think that, you know, the the the issue here
that you and maybe other other people don't want to talk about is that we live in a land of the rule of law and that that is the law of Louisiana and so they can seek that care in another state. Sorry to determinate to cut you short here, but I just have a few seconds. In other words, essentially
what you're saying, 10,000 women a year in Louisiana make a decision and that decision is overridden by the state legislature rather than their own choice. I think that's unfortunate. Senator Sanders, you know, I would I would also continue to say that it is
illegal, it is unethical and it is immoral for them for anyone to send pills to someone with no medical supervision and then tell them to lie at the hospital. >> That happens because of the laws of your state. >> No, it happens because people from outside our state are sending them into
our state to nullify our state laws. That's why it happens. >> Dr. Roger Marshall. >> Thank you. Thank you chairman. Good morning everybody to our witnesses. Dr. Verma, do you not have other Prosten drugs to treat postpartum hemorrhage like Prosten M. Is is that the only drug
that's out there that works? >> We have a few medications to treat postpartum hemorrhage. And when I am in situations where someone >> I I know what you're I delivered a baby every day for 30 years. I know your situation, but there are other alternatives out there. No one here is trying to take those away. um the the uh
these abortion drugs uh you know category A drugs are safe, B are probably safe, C what type of category drug are the these prostaglandin drugs that you prescribe >> in Louisiana now they have been made controlled substances and I would like to highlight when I'm in a situation
with a postpartum hemorrhage yes there are other medications >> we'll let you answer that later on someone else's time I'm sorry but but but you would agree with me that these prostaglandon drugs are category X drugs >> the answer is yes they are category X drugs. Okay. Uh Dr. Wenburst, I get that
right. Okay. Um I think like you delivered a baby every day of my life for 30 years, nearly every day for 30 years. A woman comes in for her first visit and she tells you when her last menstrual cycle was. It's pretty common for them to be off.
In fact, it's very common to be off about a month. Would would not be unusual. Would you agree with that? >> Uh yes, uh Dr. Marshall. Actually, I would add to that that I recently had a woman come in because she was having some bleeding and abdominal pain and she was 23 weeks and didn't know it. And
that was >> very common. We've all had that patient in the ER with abdominal pain five minutes apart and they getting ready to do an appendicitis on her. They call in the OB. Oh my gosh, she's having a baby. Um, I think you would also agree with me, doctor, that the failure rate of these abortion drugs is probably around
5% at less than 10 weeks, but the failure rate of giving it to a 14-week person over the phone, the failure rate is probably 10%. Failure rate meaning it doesn't work, right? Um, would an ultrasound, not only seeing the the patient in person, but having an
ultrasound at your at your helm there impact your decision making? And and then you and I don't prescribe these abortion drugs, but you know, taking care of a miscarriage is is similar. You and I have taken care of thousands of miscarriages. Would you add any color to that? >> Yes. I would say that uh that there
would be a substantial change. That's because once you get into the second trimester, the risk of hemorrhage increases dramatically. >> Yeah. So my point is you do this visit over the phone, the young lady thinks she's eight week. And I have I have so much compassion for these young ladies.
They're scared and and they need help. And that's why I opened up my practice regardless of your ability to pay to say, "Look, if you" I had more than one patients come into my office that said they'd been to Planned Parenthood and they were being coerced into abortion. And she came to my office said, "Is
there anything else we can do, doctor? Do I have to have an abortion?" I said, "Of course, we'll take care of you. Uh we're going to get you hooked up with Catholic Social Services and and we're going to get you a medical card. We're going to do do whatever it takes." But my my point is this. That same patient
calls me from home or just goes to the pharmacy and picks this drug up. They think they're 10 weeks, but they're actually 14 weeks. There's a 10% chance of this drug not working. And the risk factors associated with
this X-rated drug, I'm going to have to read them because I I didn't realize this. uh 5% of the babies that go to go on to deliver that took this drug, 5% of them have a major major fetal malf for lib deformities. So like it's like
they're missing fingers, they're missing digits, cranial nerve pausies, uh think like Bell's palsy, you can't open your eyelids, you can't smile, cranial nerve palsies, cranial facial defects, and of of course premature births.
Doctor, I'm going to come back to you. Do you think it an ultrasound seeing the patient in person is beneficial and safe and not doing so is below the standard of care? >> I would agree with that and I would also add that ACOG in its committee opinion says that any pregnancy that is not dated by ultrasound is suboptimally
dated. >> Yeah. Yeah. Dr. Verma, you take care of ladies with miscarriage and I'm and I'm sorry for your loss as well. It's a uh one of my, you know, just worst days is taking care of of a woman with the miscarriage. Do you do ultrasounds typically when a person comes to your
office for a threatened miscarriage? >> I do ultrasounds in a lot of different settings, including when a patient is unsure of their last menstrual period. And >> but but do you I'm sorry. I know you're kind of been coached to go offline here, but do you do an ultrasound on every
patient that comes to your office with a threatened miscarriage to figure out how far along they are? >> I do ultrasounds again in many different situations. I think the the misinformation here is that when a patient comes >> Dr. Do you do ultrasounds when patients come to your office with a threatened miscarriage? >> Yes, sir.
>> Yeah. Dr. Verma, last question. Would an ultrasound and seeing the patient in person be helpful to you in making the determination of whether you would prescribe these abortion pills? >> When a patient is unsure about their last menstrual period, we do connect
them with ultrasound. What's limiting their ability to get that ultrasound is abortion bans and restrictions in their communities. >> You don't have an ultrasound in your office >> in situations where patients are getting um >> do you have an ultrasound in your office?
>> Because you're you're talking about tellahalthare through telealth. We >> tell health taking care of ectopic pregnancies threatened miscarriages prescribing abortion pills is below the standard of care. You're putting women's lives at danger. Senator Murray,
>> Dr. Verma, do you want to finish answering your question, please? >> Absolutely. Um, so I just want to talk a little bit about teleaalth care, which is an important way to improve access for people, including people in abusive relationships. We have data showing that for people that are in these abusive
relationships, um, tellahalth is a critical tool that helps them get the care that they need. And actually, when we're doing teleahalth, we have very strict screening processes. And so if there are signs of an ectopic pregnancy, we would connect them with further care. If we're unsure or they're unsure about
their last menstrual period, we would recommend an ultrasound. And I really want to highlight here what's limiting people's ability to get that additional care is abortion bans and restrictions. That is why we are seeing these cases because patients can't get that
follow-up care in their communities. They're scared to go to the hospital if they need to because of fear of being criminalized. But that's what's making the care unsafe. We actually have very strict processes that guide our teleaalth care just like our in-person care.
>> Thank you very much for that response. Um, you know, one talking point that we're hearing a lot from anti-choice extremists has to do with the word coercion that current regulations allowing tele medicine, prescribing and dispensing somehow empower abusers as
opposed to empowering say the hundreds of thousands of women who seek out care that way every year. So, Dr. Verma, which is the problem in this scenario? Is it the availability of a safe and effective drug for abortion care or is it people who abuse or coercuse women?
>> Thank you for that question. I oppose reproductive coercion and abuse in any form. Any type of reproductive coercion is wrong and is something I've spent a lot of my career fighting against. I screen my patients. I find real
solutions to support them. We know that abortion care and teleaalth care actually helps protect people. Having all of their options helps protect people. We've seen in the data that for people that are in abusive relationships that are denied needed abortions,
they're more likely to stay in those abusive relationships and put themselves and their families and children at risk. What we need here is real solutions to support people in these relationships and people that are being coerced.
Restricting care further is not a real solution. It is a distraction. >> Thank you for that response. And I just have to say I'm really tired of Republicans pretending they care about protecting women when all they mean is taking away women's ability to make decisions about their own bodies. If
they really cared about protecting women, they'd care about the fact that this administration refused to release the Epstein files without an act of Congress or they wouldn't cut grants for crime victim services for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.
They'd actually care about the fact that this administration has elevated people who shield alleged sex traffickers like Andrew Trait, and they certainly wouldn't be trying to force rape victims to stay pregnant no matter what. So coercion is a matter of discussion here.
Uh I I have a question for you, Dr. Weber. Anti-abortion groups have shown time and again they're going to try anything to rip away access to medication abortion, including actually in recent years pushing this absurd lie that mythopristone is somehow quote
poisoning our water supply. They absurdly claim that when people self-manage abortions at home, they're somehow contaminating the environment. This is crazy. The head of policy for the anti-abortion group, Students for Life, told Political last year, and I'm
going to quote, "People need to understand they are likely drinking other people's abortions." Dr. Wers, do you agree that that's the case? >> No, thank you for the question, Senator Murray, although I do take exception with the way you're characterizing uh pro-life groups. But if I can finish, um
I do don't really feel qualified to speak on this issue because I do think that uh there um are other um products that are disposed of in in wastewater. Miscarriages are um menstrual hygiene
pro um products are. I do think that it is highly problematic that a woman who receives an abortion drug goes back and delivers her baby in the toilet, in her dorm room, on the floor of the shower, where wherever it is. I'm almost out. Let me just tell you that is insane.
That comment is insane. We all know that the push to use environmental laws to rip away my pristone is not about the environment. The head of policy for students for life lit literally described it as quote using the devil's own tools against them. People need to
understand that right now anti-abortion groups are pushing invasive and dehumanizing laws to block women in states where abortion is legal from getting the care in the privacy of their own home. Republicans need to stop this and I am just appalled that this is
where they are going. Thank you. >> Senator Banks. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chairman again for holding this hearing. I think it's really important. The Biden administration made the reckless decision to allow onlineies to prescribe dangerous chemical abortion drugs and to
let male orderies ship them directly to women without a real consultation with a doctor. However, Mr. Chairman, I'm I'm disappointed that the FDA under Dr. McCary's leadership hasn't moved faster to restore the in-person dispensing requirement and strengthen the rims
program for meriststone. I hope the rumors are false. Some of them are in print. that the agency is intentionally sloww walking its study on me mythopriston's health risk. I really hope that that's not the case. And Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that Dr. McCary
would be here today so that we could ask him some of these questions directly and clear up those rumors. This is about protecting women from dangerous and even life-threatening drugs and their side effects. And uh Mr. Chairman, I hope that Dr. McCary and the FDA will address this important issue without further
delay. With that, I'll I'll begin my questions. Uh uh Dr. Wenhorst, the 2016 Obama FDA stopped requiring reporting of non-fatal complications from abortion drugs like methipristone. Then in 2023, the Biden administration
weakened the rims program risk evaluation and mitig mitigation strategies for methapristone and allowed it to be prescribed online and delivered through the mail. Can you tell us really quickly why that combination of decisions are so dangerous? >> Yeah, I think those decisions were
dangerous because number one, if we are only focusing on death, we're missing all the other outcomes and we can't be said to have been collecting data that we need. Um, as I've mentioned uh in both in the US and internationally there are studies indicating that um my
pristone misoprostyl used for abortion are associated with significant side effects and risks and harms to women. Um in addition to that, excuse me, in addition to that, um the lack of data on um myopristone and
misoprostyl um leads us to come to what I think are erroneous conclusions about its safety. Myopristone uh the requirement is for prescribers methopristone and um drug companies to report, but there's no mandatory requirement for hospitals and medical
providers. There's no mandatory reporting. So we're really not seeing a huge number of those um complications being reported and this is putting women at harm. Do >> Dr. This is the FDA label for methopristone. It's dated January 2023 and that that was during the Biden
administration. They when they started weakening the safeguards and the label hasn't changed since then. Uh, Methopristone has a a blackbox warning and I'm wondering if you could tell us what does a blackbox warning mean?
>> Right. So, blackbox warning exists to warn both patients and prescribers of serious and sometimes fatal complications that are associated uh with the use of a drug. For example, chemotherapy drugs typically have a blackbox warning associated with them. Um, this is why the comparison with
Viagra and Tylenol is not correct because Viagra does not have a blackbox warning. Tylenol does not have a blackbox warning. >> So, the the label says that doctors need to inform patients about myopristone's risk. It says that doctors need to ensure that women know who to call and
what to do if they experience sustained fever, severe abdominal pain, prolonged heavy bleeding or fainting. Doctor, are onlineies and teleaalth websites doing that? >> No, they're not. I've actually visited these. Of course, I haven't bought anything, but I've actually visited
these and they do not um say anything about the black box warning or the serious side effects. >> So, do you think that uh any drug with a blackbox warning should be prescribed online? >> Never. And it should not be prescribed over the counter either. >> Okay. Uh, the FDA label also says,
quote, "Serious and sometimes fatal infections and bleeding occur very rarely following spontaneous surgical and medical abortions, including following mythopristone use. Doctor, based on all of the studies and
the data that we have that you've seen, how often is quote very rarely?" Well, the studies uh the one of the studies that I've reviewed recently from um one of the Scandinavian countries showed an infection rate of approximately 2%. So if you consider the
number the millions of abortions I'm sorry the um that about 60% of abortions are being done close to a million abortions every year 2% infection rate that is not rare. So can can quantify that any further >> uh in terms of numbers of of women
>> how many women are impacted >> how the women are impacted >> how many I mean okay take a >> well if you said two yeah let's say you said 2% about half 500,000 so 2% of 500,000 >> Mr. Chairman, that's that's so significant. We're we're not acting
quick quickly enough and uh I hope that we I hope that we do something about this. Thank you again for holding this uh hearing and your leadership with that. I yield back >> and there's been two to my colleagues as regarding Commissioner Mccaui not being present. We do hope to have the commissioner before the comm community
committee very soon and we've been speaking with the FDA to facilitate the discussion of this and other issues. As regards Secretary Kennedy, he did promise to come back and we have requested that he come back and testify. That was something that Senator Murray mentioned with
>> No, it's in the process. Uh and so now, Senator Baldwin. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this hearing is allegedly about protecting women, but what we're really talking about here is
a Republican effort for uh a national abortion ban by any means necessary. Frankly, if my uh Republican colleagues truly cared about protecting women, they would ensure that uh women had the right
to make decisions about their own bodies and access to comprehensive and affordable health care. We're currently uh facing an ongoing health care crisis in this country. President Trump and Congressional
Republicans big ugly bill will result in 15 million Americans losing their health insurance and cause 200 Planned Parenthood clinics to close, cutting off access to cancer screenings and
reproductive health care. The 24 million Americans who rely on the Affordable Care Act marketplace are facing drastically increased costs fueled by the expiration of enhanced uh
premium tax credits. And numbers released yesterday by CMS show that the Affordable Care Act uh enrollment is declining as a result. Dr. Verma, you t uh touched on this in your testimony,
but how do these uh uh Republican actions to limit women's access to health care generally um and reproductive health care specifically, how does that affect the patients that you see? >> Thank you for that question. It
dramatically affects the patients that I see in Georgia. Um we have a huge number of maternity care deserts about 40% of our counties. Um and many of those patients can't get easy access to their prenatal care, their cancer screenings.
I often see women who um come in for to deliver their babies who have not been able to get any prenatal care. Um and these cuts are making that much worse. And so we are creating a world where women can't get access to the abortion care they need. They also when they
choose to parent cannot safely continue their pregnancies and deliver because they can't get the health care that they need. >> Um we've heard a lot today uh of uh things that are not uh based in evidence.
Here are the facts. Methopristone has been FDA approved for nearly 25 years. More than 100 peer-reviewed, robust clinical studies have confirmed its
safety. 99% of patients who took the abortion pill had no complications. My Republican colleagues are citing studies that simply don't pass muster. Uh these studies may not be
peer-reviewed or even published in medical journals. So, Dr. Dr. Verma, could you share the difference between the over 100 studies affirming the safety of methone and the so-called studies that my Republican colleagues
have chosen to highlight at this uh hearing? >> Thank you for that question. Absolutely. Um just as you mentioned, we have over a hundred highquality peer-reviewed studies showing Miffy Prisone safety and effectiveness. less than 10. Two have
been retracted um to to suggest that Miffy Pristone is not safe. One that is commonly cited and that we've heard about today. Even the CEO of the Association of Pro-life OBGYNS admitted the paper is not a study in the traditional sense and is not proof of
anything. It was a policy paper that was self-published that mislabeled um serious adverse events. Um, it included routine care as serious adverse events um and falsely um really falsely made
claims about everything it was saying. And so yes, the the science on this is more than settled. Um which really does beg the question of of what are we doing here today, right? The science is settled. I think any person of science can compare these over a hundred studies
to the less than 10 to have been retracted. All of which are deeply flawed if you look at them as a person of science. I think any person can say the science is settled. And so again, what are we doing here today? And it may be that we are here today because people
in this room feel uncomfortable with abortion. And that's okay and we can talk about that and we can have an honest conversation about that and complexity and the reasons that my patients need abortion care, but we should not pretend that this is an issue of the science.
>> Thank you. I would offer that Dr. Marshall as a practicing OB knows something about science and he listed some side effects. John Hoostead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, admittedly, in preparation for today's hearing,
uh, I had uh, a lot of reflection about my start in life. Uh I started out in foster care and was adopted and uh know that my birth mother
was under a lot of pressure to have an abortion and thankfully for me she didn't. Um I know that my biological father had pressured her to do so and she chose an
adoption. So I fast forward and think about the world we live in today with drugs like me mythopristone and wonder if it existed then would the outcome for
me have been different. Um, I would like to think that my birth mother would have still chosen to have an adoption, but I've seen some of the horrors of men who are trying to use the drug to end
pregnancies against the will of the woman that they give the drug to. And I I'm and I'm going to go through a couple of examples to prove that this is a real life situation. Example one. According to a criminal complaint filed in the US
District Court in the Southern District of Texas, Christopher Cooper Writer murdered his nextdoor neighbor's unborn child who he fathered in 2025. Cooper Writer obtained Myth Prisone via online pharmacy and gave her these drugs without her knowledge by lacing it in
her hot chocolate. Example two from my own state of Ohio. According to the Ohio State Medical Board, Hassan James Abbas offered Miff obtained Myth Prisone and Mr. Protol uh
via an out ofstate tele medicine provider by providing tele medicine uh by providing the tele medicine platform the name of his estranged wife. Mr. Abbas allegedly obtained the prescription of Miss Prisone with the intent to secretly terminate the
pregnancy of a woman with whom he had engaged in a sexual relationship. Public reporting alleges that Mr. Abbas spiked the beverage with her with the abortion drug without the woman's knowledge and she didn't con but she didn't consume the beverage and then later Mr. Abbas waited until she was asleep, held the
woman down and forced her to consume the drug. That's not the choice of a woman. Uh this is not the choice of a woman controlling her own body. This is how an easily obtained drug that
can terminate the life of a unborn child can be used to uh end that life without an individual's the woman consenting to it.
And so I just asked the question I'll start with with u you attorney general Merurl. How would like how do we stop this? But it seems to me that just requiring an in-person visit
uh for before dispensing the drug would stop this. And I want your thought on that. >> Thank you, Senator, and thank you for telling your story. I mean, it's stories like yours that have caused the overwhelming bipartisan decision of our
state legislature to to protect life both for the born and unb for born and unborn children. And that is an overwhelming policy decision of our legislature that is supported by the overwhelming majority of people in our state. So, appreciate you sharing your
story. We absolutely believe that putting the in-person dispensing requirement back in place would substantially protect women. And and we do have additional evidence, similar stories like you, your a state senator's sister testified in our legislature
about her aranged husband poisoning her food uh to get rid of a pregnancy that he did not want. And uh fortunately, her baby was born. she suffers some complications from from that assault on her. Uh but you know that this is why
Louisiana put those drugs on the state controlled substances list so that we can track who's prescribing them and make sure that they are being uh there's some accountability for the use of these medications. The in-person requirement provides that accountability and and
still does not interfere with those states who wish to adopt a different policy provision. >> I want I want to be able to get to the other just just quickly. How do we stop stuff? How do we stop this from happening? Uh >> we prosecute those people.
>> Well, uh I think that we reinstate the REM or strengthen the REM and we enforce the Comtock Act. I think that those are two of the most effective um things in order to stop tele medicine abortion. >> Dr. Verma, quickly >> and thank you for sharing your story. I
do just want to assure you that I talk to all my patients about adoption and continuing pregnancy and abortion. Um I think we stop this by um making sure that people can get the care they need in their communities and are able to get support when they need it.
>> Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kaine. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Hassan. I'm sorry. I can't even read it. It's up here and I I skipped it. I'm sorry. >> Thank you, Senator Kaine. That is very kind. Um,
>> true. Um, welcome to our witnesses and and thank you for being here. Um, you know, I I have to say, Mr. chair. Um, this hearing has just struck me as gaslighting at the highest level.
Um, I have some questions for Dr. Verma. I'm going to get to them in just a second, but let me be clear. Um, there is bipartisan work that we have all done together to combat sex trafficking. Those signs you saw, Southwest Airlines plane, that's
because we passed a law that said they have to go up in airports and on planes. That was bipartisan work we all did. The truth of the matter is that women have been coerced before Methristone and they have been coerced since Methopristone.
The murder rate, the assault rate on pregnant women by their partners to end a pregnancy has been a longstanding part of human history. So to blame it on Miff Pristone misses the point. To
say that women shouldn't be able to get this medication through the mail misses the point that abortion bans have created maternal health and reproductive health deserts in this country. So that when you say a woman should go consult
with a physician, there are women who would have to travel hours in this country, miss work, find a babysitter if they have a car to begin with in order to do that because of policies that have banned abortion and have cut Medicaid in particular.
That's what we are facing. There is bipartisan concern that women be able to access health care. There is a bipartisan understanding that reproductive care to Dr. Vermer's point
is complex. When I had a miscarriage at 12 weeks, it was painful and it was hard and it was emotional and methapristone had nothing to do with it and I didn't use meriststoneone. I had to have a DNC. So the gaslighting here is
extraordinary. So let's talk about the real issues. Dr. Verma, Planned Parenthood provides life-saving health care for millions of women. So, I recently heard from a constituent, Trisha, in Senipi, New Hampshire, who went to Planned
Parenthood to get affordable basic health care after she left the military. Trisha shared that without Planned Parenthood's sliding fee scale based on income, she wouldn't have been able to see an OB/GYN at all. During one of her appointments at Planned Parenthood,
Trisha was tested and treated for a reproductive health condition that if left untreated, could have led her to have serious health complications down the road. Now, President Trump and congressional Republicans stripped Planned Parenthood of critical funding last year, taking life-saving preventive
care and screenings away from women like Trisha. Dr. Verma, what long-term health impacts could women like Trisha face as a result of President Trump defunding Planned Parenthood? Thank you for that question and for sharing your story. Um I see patients
like this all the time where Planned Parenthood plays a critical role in their health care access for things like cancer screenings, sexually transmitted infection screenings, birth control in addition to abortion care and miscarriage management. And not having
that access point will have devastating effects on people's ability to detect um signs of cervical cancer or precancer early, to have sexually transmitted infections treated, to have a lot of the preventive care that people need to stay healthy.
>> Thank you. Um I've heard from granite stator who took me stone after the loss of a much wanted pregnancy. So Dr. Verma, I understand that there are serious health risks for women if they have a miscarriage that goes untreated. When a state restricts access to
mephipristone, what are the health impacts for women experiencing miscarriage? >> Absolutely. Thank you for um that question. Uh we know based on the data that miffristone combined with misoprosttol um for women that want medication
management of their miscarriage is the ideal option and already because of restrictions on my pristone many women can't get that standard of care treatment that speeds up the process reduces pain and decreases their need to have to have a procedure if that's
something that they don't want. >> Thank you. Um last question. Millions of women live in maternal care deserts where the nearest OB/GYN is sometimes hours away. As I referenced in my initial comments, women who don't have access to a specialist can access safe
abortion by getting my pristry and follow-up care through teleaalth. Dr. Verma, how has teleaalth changed access to safe reproductive care in rural areas? >> Thank you. It has made it more accessible and again like I emphasized earlier there is a process for
tellahalth there are regulations there are strict screenings that happen and what is really the issue here is when people need additional care they can't get it in their communities without fear of being criminalized. >> Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chair.
>> Senator Moody. >> Uh thank you Chairman Cassidy for convening this important hearing. Um, as one of only a few mothers of school-aged children in the Senate, um, the safety and well-being of women
and children is very important to me. I'm was disheartened to hear after the brave story of my colleague sharing that he was indeed adopted and that his birthother was pressured to get an abortion and she bravely refused and carried him to term
and gave him up for adoption. That that was referred to as gaslighting. Um, it's very hard for me also to sit here as someone who has been in the legal worlds and seen the horrific stories that have come to light about
coercive abortions. That that is gaslighting. I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to refrain from using that language because there has been very serious incidents where women and their children were
harmed. And that is not gaslighting. That is fact. And I'm also disheartened that we heard as we bring up the instance of men or even some women crushing up these abortion drugs and giving them to people
surreptitiously in order to end a life. that we should tolerate this new trend in crime, in murder, because, as one of my Democratic colleagues just put it after referring to these instances as
gaslighting because, and I'm quoting my Democratic colleague, coercion of abortions is longstanding part of human history. That is unacceptable. And in fact, when I was attorney general
in Florida, just a year or so ago, a woman in Florida got an abortion drug from out of state as part of a plot to kill her ex-boyfriend's new girlfriend's child in the womb.
I mean, this stuff isn't made up. When I was a judge in Florida, back before I was the attorney general, in my hometown, a guy got an abortion drug, put a different label on the bottle, labeled as an
antibiotic, and gave it to his former girlfriend and said, "You need to take this." And she did. And she had to testify at trial with a picture of a a sonogram of that child. This is not gaslighting. This is
happening and as states are trying after DOS to come up with as a people what their laws are going to be, we here in Washington have to make sure that those laws that they come up with to prevent this kind
of thing to protect their people are not circumvented. Miss Verma, can men get pregnant? >> Um, Dr. Verma, I just want to make sure we're >> Dr. Verma, can men get pregnant? As a doctor, give me your opinion. As a doctor, can men get pregnant?
>> Um, I mean, I'll move on to the next one. Is doctor, can men get pregnant? >> No. >> M, I know you're a lawyer, an AG, like I was an AG. Can men get pregnant? >> No. Is there any reason why men should
get their hands on the abortion drug? >> None. >> And are they getting their hands on an abortion drug drugs? >> They are. >> And are they getting them through the mail across state lines? >> They are. >> Even when it is illegal and the people have decided within states that that they want to prevent that.
>> They are. And I would just add that that is because there is a concerted effort to prevent any accountability and any human contact. So they go to anybody who asks for them. They do not identify now in many states the prescriber, the
pharmacy or the recipient. And so this is very dangerous. It is by design created that way in order to circumvent jobs. >> Is it easy for men to get abortion drugs across state lines? >> Extraordinarily. >> In fact, I had staff members who said,
"My name is Michael. How do I get abortion drugs?" Would it surprise you to know that there are all kinds of organizations ready to satisfy that whim of a man to get abortion drugs? >> Sadly, it does not surprise me. >> And not just in your I know from working
with you as fellow attorneys general. Uh I know that you value life and you want to protect life and you're doing everything you can to do that, but in your role as a prosecutor that is protecting people and is meant to and it is your job to enforce the people's laws to protect people. Are men getting these
drugs and using them to surreptitiously in life in their girlfriends, wives, lovers, etc. >> They are men and and in some clay times parents and women. And uh in in two of the cases that we are in fact prosecuting, shield laws are blocking
our ability to do that. And I I I cannot understand why any governor would refuse our extradition papers so that we can prosecute someone who coerced their their child to have an abortion. >> Chairman Cassy, I see my time has expired. I appreciate you for facing
this issue head on. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, Senator Moody. And now, Senator Kim. >> Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to the three of you for showing up here. Dr. Verma, I'd like to start with you. there was a phrase that's been uh that that you mentioned and several of my
colleagues have that I'd like to just kind of dive in deeper which is about these uh maternal care deserts. So if you can just explain to us explain to the American people the challenge that we're facing with maternal care deserts. >> Absolutely. Thank you for that question.
And so we've seen that hospitals and clinics are closing um because of many of the changes that we're seeing with cuts to Medicaid um making it harder for hospitals to stay open, clinics to stay open, and it is um increasing the
distances that people have to travel to get to an OBGYn. So there are some women in rural parts of the country that have to travel over a 100 miles to get to the closest OBGYn. These are counties where there are no hospitals that offer
obstetric services, uh, birth centers, no obstitricians, gynecologists, certified nurse, midwives. There are Do you know how many counties there are? >> In the United States, it's about 35% of counties. In some states like Georgia,
it's even more. >> It's exactly right. 36%. I was I was calculating over,00 counties in the United States. Uh you know for me I I'm grateful that in New Jersey we have greater density and and
more access to this. But I I'm trying to think through what is needed around the entire country. When I'm thinking about millions of women of childbearing age that that do not have this type of access and then the conversation that we're having here, I mean, I just kind of keep thinking about like I hope we
have a hearing on this, you know, I hope we have a hearing on just the the challenges that so many women are facing and the difficulty that is going forward. And as you were saying, am I correct that this seems like it's getting worse right now in terms of just the the lack of access and hospitals
closing and other issues? >> Absolutely. It's definitely getting worse. I took care of a patient recently who um she was a young woman, came to see me, um chose to continue her pregnancy, wanted to support her in that, but she said, "I can't get to an OB/GYN. There is no OB/GYN in my part of
the state. I don't know how I'm going to get prenatal care." That makes people less safe. >> And even within these areas, I mean, who are the types of of women that would have the greatest struggle within these deserts? people that may not have access to transportation, other things like
that that you've I'm sure come across. >> Yeah, it's people that are already facing burdens um to access the health care system. So, people that um don't have insurance or have Medicaid that is getting additionally cut, people uh young people, people from marginalized communities that are already facing
barriers. This is just exacerbating the situation for them. Well, look, it it's something that I I think we really as a committee need to commit ourselves towards if we're talking about care for women. Obviously, a lot of disagreements on on very important issues, but I hope
we can all agree upon the need for greater access to be able to uh to be able to reverse this trend of growing maternal care deserts. One other implication I just wanted to throw into the mix here is just the the question
that comes with this undermining of FDA and the trust that I think is being eroded with these types of of challenges that we're facing with. So Dr. Verma, I guess I just wanted to ask you your thoughts of what would happen when it comes to whether drug developers and and
others that are seeking and closely watching this hearing right now. What happens if the American people lose trust in the FDA? If we lose trust in the FDA's ability to follow science and approve drugs based on safety and efficacy.
>> Thank you for that question. You're absolutely right. This has implications for a whole range of things. Science and evidence need to guide, not politics. What we're seeing is a political agenda that is um dictating what options are available for patients and that is not
just going to affect access to abortion care and miscarriage management. It has implications for birth control vaccines. We're already seeing the impact of vaccines. This is farreaching when we start to let politics dictate medicine. the the amount of outreach that I got
regarding this hearing across the board from well beyond issues related to these types of medications just about the issues about where our country is heading towards when it comes to trust in medicine and the development. I I just want to point that out because the
the ramifications are are very farreaching and ones that could very well affect many many other drugs. And with that, I'll yield back. Senator Holly, I think it's science-based by the way that men can't have babies, but that's going to be
something. Senator Holly, don't worry about it. Senator Holly, that was Senator Moody. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since you bring it up, why don't we just start there? Dr. Verma, I wasn't sure I understood your answer to Senator Moody a moment ago. Do do you think that men can get pregnant?
I hesitated there because I wasn't sure where the conversation was going or what the goal was. I mean, I do take care of patients with different identities. I take care of many women. I take care of people with different identities. Um, and so that's where I paused. I think um
yeah, I wasn't sure where you were going with that. >> Well, the the goal is the truth. So, can men get pregnant? >> Again, the reason I paused there is I I'm not really sure what the goal of the question. >> The goal is just to establish a biological reality. You just said a moment ago that science and evidence
should control, not politics. >> So, let's just test that proposition. Can men get pregnant? >> I take care of people with many identities, but um can men get pregnant? >> Many women that can get pregnant. I do take care of people that don't identify as women that
>> can can men get pregnant. >> Again, as I'm saying, >> let me just let me just remind you what you testified to a moment ago. Science and evidence should control, not politics. So should can men get pregnant? >> You're a doctor. I think >> science and evidence should guide
medicine. I >> do. Science and evidence tell us that men can get pregnant. Biological men, can they get pregnant? >> I also think yes no questions like this are a political tool and >> no. Yes, no questions are about the truth, doctor. Let's not make a mockery of this proceeding. This is about science and evidence. And I'm asking
you, you know, the United States Supreme Court just heard arguments yesterday at great length on this question. This is not a hypothetical question. This is not theoretical. It affects real people in their real lives. And you're here as an expert called by the other side as an expert. And you've been telling us that
you that you follow, right? You're a doctor and you follow the science and the evidence. So, I just want to know based on the science, can men get pregnant? >> That's a yes or no question. It really is. I think >> I think you're trying to reduce the complexity of a lot.
>> I'm not I'm trying to get It's not complex. I'm trying to get to an answer and I'm trying to test frankly your veracity as a medical professional and as a scientist. Can men get pregnant? >> I think you're also conflating male extraordinary male with
>> No, I'm not conflating male and female. They're two different things. There's biological men and there's biological women. And I want to know, can men get pregnant? >> What you were talking about is biological >> You're not going to answer my question. >> Biological males. Um,
>> this isn't hard, doctor. Can men get pregnant? Yes or no? >> Megan, I would be more than happy to have a conversation with you that is not coming from a place of trying to be polarized and pushing. >> I'm not trying to be polarizing. I'm
trying to ask I I think it is extraordinary that we are here and hearing about science and about women. And for the record, it's women who get pregnant, not men. It also >> we are here about the safety of women and science
that shows that this abortion drug causes adverse health events in 11% of cases. That's 22 times greater than the FDA label. Another fact you haven't acknowledged. And yet you won't even acknowledge the basic reality that
biological men don't get pregnant. There's a difference between biological men and biological women. I I just I don't know how we can take you seriously and your claims to be a a person of science if you won't level with this on this basic issue. I thought we were past
all of this. Frankly, I I I can't believe we're still here talking about this. >> I am a person of science and I'm also someone here who's here to represent the complex experiences of my patients and I don't think polarized languages language
or questions serve that goal. I don't think they serve the American people. not polarizing to say that there is a scientific difference between men and women. And I want this to be clear and for the record. It is not polarizing to say that women are a biological reality and should be treated and protected as
such. That is not polarizing. That is truth. It is also, by the way, the United States Constitution, which offers unique protections to women in a variety of circumstances as women. and your refusal to recognize women as women and
men as men is deeply corrosive to science, to public trust, and yes, to constitutional protections for women as women. And I just I I I think it's extraordinary that you would sit here in advance a political agenda that has been
thoroughly discredited and rejected by the American people in this forum. And I I'm glad we had this exchange because it is exceptionally clarifying. It is also in many ways quite depressing. I see that my time is nearly expired. I just want to thank the other witnesses for being here. Thank you for protecting women and children. Thank you for your
valiant efforts. Thank you for following the science. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. >> Senator also Brooks. >> Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I I would be remiss if I didn't start by saying I heard my colleague, you know, very passionately talk about uh the fact that
this is about the safety of women. I want to make it clear that this administration and this secretary could care less about women, men, or children. And in fact, they don't care about humans. And I want to be very clear. I could go down and delineate how that is true, but that is not the subject of
today's hearing. But for the past year, we have all watched Secretary Kennedy and this administration pedal conspiracy theories and junk science to dismantle public health structures in this country. So, I don't want anyone lecturing about the safety of women.
These people don't care about humans. Last week, in fact, we saw the latest example with Kennedy re recklessly eliminating the CDC's recommendation for a number of critical childhood vaccinations and very alarmingly,
including the flu shot in the midst of a flu, basically a surge in a super flu. This is the moment that this man decides to eliminate uh the flu shot for children as a recommendation. Just like with the pediatric vaccine schedule,
changing the rules on FDA approved drugs without scientific input, legitimate evidence on safety, risk, or transparency will cause, we know, unnecessary fear for patients. RFK's same playbook is being used to target
Mr. Pristone, a safe and effective medication that has been approved by the FDA for over 25 years now. Take all of the fear-mongering and myths truths that RFK spewed earlier last year about measles, mumps, and rebella vaccines and
take the fact that RFK agreed to reopen the case on Methopristone this fall, conducting its own very fake review of the evidence of safety and efficacy of this drug. That review was based in part on a study released last summer by the
Ethics and Public Policy Center. Now, Dr. Verma, as a practicing physician, I would imagine that you read peer-reviewed research and journals fairly regularly. Is that correct? >> Yes, I do. >> And is the Ethics and Public Policy
Center a peer-reviewed or rigorous medical journal? >> It is not. That is a policy paper that you are referring to. >> And in fact, EPC's own stated mission is to, and I quote, apply the riches of the Jewish and Christian traditions to
contemporary questions of law, culture, and politics in pursuit of America's continued civic and cultural renewal. Some of their recent publications include a post entitled, quote, "Good riddens, Governor Waltz." Quote. Another one is, "Liberal women have abandoned
marriage." Another one, ending male order abortion would fulfill three Trump campaign promises and the rights of women, a natural law approach. This is clearly not the work of unbiased science, but an organization with a
political agenda, one based on the last publication I mentioned that promotes that women are in their view inferior and should submit to men. And yet their work is being cited by state attorneys general and members of this committee to roll back access to a drug that millions
of women have used safely for decades. So Dr. Verman, was EPC's mythopist pristone study peer-reviewed? >> It was not. >> And did this study mix in data from miscarriage management and IUD insertion procedures that have absolutely nothing
to do with abortion care? it did mix in a lot of things that were not directly related and also they were not transparent about their methods. So, it's actually hard to figure out what exactly happened. Any peer-reviewed
um study needs to reveal their methods, their data sources. They did not do that. And so it's very unclear the specifics, but we can tell that patients that um were coming to the emergency room, for example, for routine care because they couldn't get care otherwise
in their communities um or patients with completely unrelated conditions were counted >> and and so you're right. So this study included completely unrelated conditions uh as complications of Miss Prisone, right? >> Absolutely. And and how would you how
would the inclusion of this data undermine outcomes? >> It significantly um overexaggerates complication rates by again um counting things that are not actually complications of methy prist. >> Let me ask you one other question. Time
is tolling. In contrast to this sham study, can you describe the body of evidence of medical reviews and published clinical trials reviewed uh this that review the safety and efficacy of miss myth pistone? Sorry, so hard to say.
>> Yes, absolutely. We have over a hundred years of high quality peer-reviewed data from multiple journals, multiple researchers. Um, and based on that data, I want to highlight one thing quickly about the FDA label that was strategically left out is that the label
specific specifically says there has been no causal relationship between the use of myuprristone and misoprotol and any of the complications listed. >> And I'll say this last thing and go this study from this conservative think tank is not in RFK's words gold standard
science. It is self-published, lacks transparency, cannot be replicated, is rife with conflicts of interest, and includes flawed data. I yield back. Thank you, >> Senator Marky. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is very
difficult for me to ignore the irony and the hypocrisy of my colleagues on the other side organizing this hearing today. While my Republican colleagues framed today's hearing
on quote protecting women, they don't appear to have cared about protecting women and families. While they stripped health care from millions of people last year, Democrats warned that blocking the extension of the ACA premium tax credits
would lead to skyrocketing premiums for 22 million Americans and their families. and that nearly 5 million people, particularly women and people of color, would lose their health insurance. But Republicans did nothing to protect women
then. When Republicans and Trump added restrictions and paperwork requirements to Medicaid, Democrats won. That could cause millions to lose their health insurance, including two million young women. But Republicans did nothing to
protect those young women. When Republicans and Trump cut almost $1 trillion dollars from Medicaid to fund tax breaks for billionaires and CEOs, I warned in my study then that those cuts
would put 300 rural hospitals at risk of closure having to cut services like labor and delivery, making child birth more dangerous for women in our country. But Republicans did not care about women then either. Now my Republican
colleagues have spent all morning spreading dangerous lies about a medication that we have known is safe for over a quarter of a century. And why are they doing that? Because this was never about protecting women. It is
about controlling women. Republicans have shown us that they will not stop until there is a national ban on abortion. And today's attacks are just another step towards that national ban. I'm proud that Massachusetts has some of
the strongest abortion protections in the nation. I heard from some patients who travel to Massachusetts for treatment. Their stories are a testament to the need for abortion protections nationwide. One said she didn't want to risk another pregnancy after
experiencing complications during her last pregnancy. Another said she was trying to escape a violent relationship and pregnancy would make it harder for her to leave. Another said she had been raped. People shouldn't have to travel out of state to get basic health care.
So, Dr. Verma, can you speak to how abortion bans impact how soon people can get care both in states with bans and states with protections? >> Absolutely. Thank you for that question. So we know overall in the United States
about um 90% of abortion care is happening um in the first trimester, but that is being pushed actually later into pregnancy because of abortion bans and restrictions and patients not being able to get care in their communities in a
timely manner because of abortion bans and restrictions. They're having to figure out how to get transportation together, get all of the resources together, find a way to get to a place where they can get the care they need. >> And what are the harms to people who have to travel long distances?
>> It is a huge burden on many people um particularly people that are already facing challenges accessing the health care system. Um this adds additional burdens for them and again adds additional time before they can get the care that they need.
>> Yeah. So just let me be clear um this debate is not just about meristrystal and medication abortion. This is about health and freedom and all of the health care system we put together to protect women. Freedom to live your life with
dignity, autonomy, and control over your family's future. And it is absolutely imperative that we continue to fight for abortion rights, to give women the ability to make the key decisions for their own health, for their own future,
and that is really what is at the center of this hearing today. Thank you, >> Senator Kaine. >> Thank you. You gave me an opportunity to cut in, you know, a long time ago, but I want to wait my turn. This is a very
important hearing and um Dr. Webenhorse your opening line in your testimony was something very similar what Dr. Verma said abortion is an important subject of intense interest debate and legislative action among the people of the United States. That is an understatement and
you both essentially talked about it as an important issue and as a complicated one and as one on which people have very strong feelings and one in which the stories those that have been shared today by by many are important to hear.
Um but I do agree with my colleagues that the hearing really is about a national abortion ban. Um, sharing stories is important, but this committee is a busy committee with a huge jurisdiction and there's a million hearings we could have and many I wish
we were having, but we're having this hearing because of the desire of the many in the Senate majority to do a national abortion ban. Um the the effort to overturn Row versus Wade was successful in the Supreme Court and that
has led many states like Louisiana and others to put very strict bans on abortion in their state laws. Attorney General, you talked about a bipartisan consensus in Louisiana. Virginia has reached a different bipartisan consensus. I note that Louisiana
legislature in the House 27% female and in the Senate 12% female. And I'm I'm not bragging about Congress. We're only 28% female. But the decision that this will be returned to elected representatives is cold comfort to a lot
of women who don't see themselves represented in legislative bodies. But it is what it is. States can make their own decision, but that's not enough for advocates and that's not enough for many of my colleagues. The fact that states,
many states all over this country are either banning or significantly restricting abortion rights is not enough. So now let's go after the primary method that is being used by women even in states like Virginia that have said, "We trust women to make these
decisions for themselves. Let's go after that, too." And so again, the every story is an important one to think about, but in a committee like this that could be having hearings on a million things, the fact that we're having this hearing in the aftermath of DOBS
essentially with state legislators wiping out abortion rights in much of the country. Now, let's go after the chief method by which women in states where abortion is lawful decide to have how to handle their pregnancy to
terminate a pregnancy. I I just see the agenda here. And the other thing that I noticed as I'm talking about stories is there have been a lot of stories about coercion. Coercion is awful. Coercion should be prosecuted as the attorney general said we ought to. But it seems to me that
like the opposite of coercion is choice. If we're against coercion, why would we be anti-choice? I mean, I I think these are words called antonyms. They're they're opposites. If coercion is a problem, and I I credit that it is. I credit that the stories
that have been told um are are true, they ought to be prosecuted, but it doesn't seem to me that the response to coercion is to more tightly control the choices women make about their own lives. Um, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
introduce with respect to the science. There was an amikas brief submitted to the Supreme Court in a case following the fifth circuit court of appeals decision an alliance for hypocratic medicine versus FDA and it's an amikas brief from the title of it is brief of
over 300 reproductive health researchers as a meuri in support of petitioners about the scientific studies on methopristo and I'd like to introduce it into the record >> without objection >> and I'd like to introduce something else in the record um uh Dr. Robin Horst, I
read the beginning of your first line in your testimony, but but I didn't read read the end. And now I'm going to read the full line. Abortion is an important subject of intense interest, debate, and legislative action among the people of the United States and their elected representatives. That's the part I read,
but the remainder of the sentence is this. And due consideration should be given to its risks and purported benefits. Not to its risks and benefits, not to its purported risks and purported
benefits, to its risks and purported benefits. So you tell us, you know, right at the beginning that you would be in the camp that would be against abortion under any circumstances. And just on the topic of risks and purported benefits, let me introduce a second item
into the record that I'm just going to read and then I'll conclude. Published today in ProPublica, a pregnant woman at risk of heart failure couldn't get urgent treatment. She died waiting for an abortion. And I'll just read two paragraphs. When CG Graham visited a
cardiologist on November 14, 2023, her heart was pounding at 192 beats per minute, a rate healthy people her age usually reached during the peak of a sprint. She was having another episode of Aphib, rapid irregular heartbeat. The 34y old Greensboro, North Carolina
police officer was at risk of a stroke or heart failure. In the past, doctors had always been able to shock Graham's heart back into rhythm with a procedure called a cardio version. But this time, the treatment was just out of reach. After a pregnancy test came back positive, the cardiologist didn't offer
to shock her. Graham texted her friend about the cardiologist said she can't cardiovert being pregnant. Um, she died of heart failure, leaving a two-year-old because she lived in a state that would
not give her cardiovascular care because she was pregnant and would not allow her to end the pregnancy so she could remain being a mother to her two-year-old son. These stories are really important and I think women can make these decisions for themselves. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
yield back and I'd like to introduce that article for the record. Without objection, there was an implication that Louisiana's uh law was somehow influenced because of the gender makeup of our legislature. I will note the woman that the Democratic
state senator who wrote the law was Katr Katrina Jackson and she was the driving force behind the law. Again, Democrat and for what it's worth, African-American. So, so just to stipulate that for the record. And also
um the health of the mother is an ex is a is an exception for abortion restrictions in Louisiana and I'm sure it's elsewhere too. So in this particular case I'm not quite sure as a physician uh what the thinking was but I
just say that for the record was a story from North Carolina and you're right about Louisiana rape and incest is not an exception but the death of the mother would be an exception under Louisiana law. Uh, >> Hickin Looper.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and I'd like to start just uh for the record, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters of from board certified physicians uh and the American College of Obstitricians and Gynecologists, ACOG, in Colorado.
>> Without objection. >> Um, thank you all for being here. Um this is a a a hard issue obviously and that I mean the reason that we care say that health care decisions uh should be between a woman and her doctor or so
many of us say that is because so often these are deeply painful um challenging personal circumstances. Um you know roughly 10 to 20% of clinically recognized pregnancies uh unfortunately end up in miscarriage.
uh methipristone along with uh uh macho prosttol uh are gold standard uh interventions to manage early pregnancy loss and Dr. Verma uh you've been through this you have some experience to this are you worried that
the constant attacks on this medication are going to leave millions of people who are losing a wanted pregnancy um but they won't have they'll be denied options and you Please talk tell your own story if you can. >> Absolutely. Um we know as I have said
that my pristone combined with misoprosttol for women that want medication management um is the most effective treatment option for for many people in the country. That option is not available because of um restrictions
and bans on these medications. I was lucky when I had my experience to be in Massachusetts where I could access these medications. But for many people in the country, that's not the case. What we're seeing, for example, in Louisiana with the controlled substance laws is that
people can't get either of these medications when they're experiencing miscarriages. And I also want to go back to one thing. I do want to thank both of you for recognizing um Senator Kaine, um Senator, that this is complicated. as a woman myself and someone who takes care
of many women in addition to people who don't identify as women, um exchanges like um the very polarized one that you saw really do a disservice to complexity and to people's lives. And I just want to say that I'm very happy to have these
nuanced productive conversations with anyone. I really do think that serves the American people better because this is complicated and we really need to to honor that for our patients and for our fellow Americans. >> Right. Well, and and building on that,
uh I want to reflect back on when I was governor in Colorado. We had a got a grant for a five-year very ambitious statewide uh effort to vastly as much as universally possible, but vastly expand
um uh long-acting re reversible contraception to as many young women uh that that wanted it. uh and over an 8-year period, we reduced unintended pregnancies by almost 60%. Um and so
it's not this is not only a a major step forward to expand more access to, you know, all forms of reproductive care and reduce teen pregnancy and reduce obviously teen teen abortion. Uh but it also save $70 million um over that whole
process because so often those uh those teenage pregnancies are not well uh they don't get uh sufficient medical attention and they end up with pre premature births, very expensive situations. um how can comprehensive rep
reproductive health um re reproductive health care education uh and planning such as what we did in Colorado, how can that help increase access for all women to uh their rights? >> Thank you for that question. Um I absolutely support people having access
to whatever birth control options are right for them. um and having access to the full range of um health care helps make people healthier. I think this also ties into a lot that we've heard about reproductive coercion. Um we've heard
stories that are terrible. You know, I've also seen many patients who can't access birth control, can't access abortion care, and ending end up having to stay in abusive relationships for that reason. And I could tell you many stories which is why the issue of
reproductive coercion is so important to me. And um and I I strongly believe that making sure health care all health care is more accessible to people is one of the solutions in addition to figuring out how else we can better support people.
>> Thank you. And I'll I'll leave us with the the thought that um you know just last week the Wyoming State Supreme Court uh found unconstitutional or uh their uh extreme bans on abortion law
violated their own constitution. uh because after the affordable care act was passed uh the state there was a statewide initiative to say that you know they viewed that the affordable care act as impringing on their right to decide uh their own healthcare uh and
now that has been reversed obviously the sentiment has has changed and as the Wyoming state supreme court noted last week the abortion bans do directly violate an individual person's ability to make their own decisions regarding their health. And I think that's a big
issue here is is whether people have that right to make their own decisions. Um I yield. >> Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of our witnesses. Look, it is really clear to me that this
hearing is not about science, and it's certainly not about women's health. I know folks would like to try and pretend otherwise, but it that's about as convincing as saying RFK Jr. saying he's not against vaccines. Republicans can throw a lot of rhetoric
around here, but their long anti-abortion track record is too painfully clear to hide. We all know the real motivation behind this hearing. Republicans don't like abortion. They want to ban abortion nationwide, but
they know that is not popular. They know the American people won't stand for that. So, Republicans are doing the next worst thing and chipping away at abortion access with every tool they can in every way they can think of and hoping Americans won't notice. But you
know what? People tend to notice when their rights go away. People tend to notice when politicians force them to stay pregnant. And people tend to notice when they turn when you turn their life upside down. So, we're not going to let these attacks on abortion slide. Not a
single one of them. We're going to call them out for what they are, and we're going to keep fighting for women's reproductive freedom every single time. >> Thank you, Senator Mury. Murray, I'm sorry. Um, just a few things to clean
up. My staff was able to confirm that in North Carolina, the health of the mother is an exception in which abortion would be allowed. So, uh, just to say that. Secondly, Dr. Verma suggested that in Louisiana if somebody is having a miscarriage that they do not have access to these drugs. That's incorrect.
Specifically, it says that if somebody is having a miscarriage, there is access to the legitimate use of these drugs in compliance with the law. So, that's incorrect. Um, also, by the way, there's some common ground here. There was a lot of criticism of what Dr.
Wubenhorse was quoting by Dr. Verma, but I think both sides want to have a safety review and Commissioner McCari promised us a safety review. And so if the issue is no, this is not accurate, well then let's do the safety review. I think there's common ground there. I think
there's common ground on a couple other things, believe it or not. Uh specifically, it was mentioned that tele medicine would be important and I but but but Attorney General Mural says this is not tele medicine. These are people filling out forms online. Implicitly,
Dr. Verma and others would agree that's not appropriate. Uh I I gather not for Dr. Verma, but apparently for most LBs, it's standard of care to do an ultrasound if there's an issue of a of a of a miscarriage. Uh and so that should be
done. There should be some information. And I was impressed with what Dr. Marshall said about the inaccuracy of the reported last menstrual period. And so just kind of the statement online that just seems unlikely. Secondly, there was or next there was also standard of care as regards the need to
have medical records. And Dr. Verman mentioned how important that was, but Attorney General Mural pointed out that the uh doctor in California was coaching the patient on how to deny that she had been given a medication. Uh
>> Senator, if I could just say aid accesses paperwork says that to everyone. it it has a whole con paragraph in it that says lie to the hospital if you need help >> and so there should be common ground that that information should that they should not be telling patients to lie to
their doctor that that is not good now that said I have no illusions that we'll find common ground on everything but if our common ground turns out to be there should be tele medicine actual human contact and that people should not be told to lie to their doctors then maybe
something will come out of this despite the polarization With that, I u uh ask unanimous consent to enter into the record statements and letters from Live Action, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Students for Life, Restoration of America Foundation, Liberty Council Action, and
the American Association of Pro-life OBGYNS expressing concern with the harmful effects of chemical abortions. Um um unanimous consent requested and granted uh for any senator wishing to ask additional questions. Questions for the
records will be due 5:00 p. p.m. Wednesday, January 28th. Thank you all for being here. And the committee stands adjourned.