The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights held a hearing on state abortion travel bans Wednesday, which was a total embarrassment for all involved.
The hearing, titled “Crossing the Line: Abortion Bans and Interstate Travel for Care After Dobbs,” featured two panels comprising legislators and advocacy groups on both sides. However, the committee failed to represent the matter wholly and acted more as a partisan circus.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), subcommittee chairman, began the battle in his opening remarks. He highlighted states with laws he disagreed with, notably Alabama, where the attorney general has vowed to prosecute anyone aiding a woman in leaving the state for an abortion. Whitehouse voiced support for the “Freedom to Travel for Healthcare Act,” introduced by Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), emphasizing his political lobbying for abortion rights over addressing the core matter.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), ranking member, responded to Whitehouse’s remarks by contextualizing the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. Kennedy emphasized that proponents and opponents of abortion rights can now lobby within their states without judicial interference, stating plainly, “The American people get to decide.”
However, when delving into the emotional aspect of the matter, he described how “that has upset some of my colleagues” because it “is the genesis of a very organized effort you see playing out today to undermine the United States Supreme Court as an institution.” Kennedy used the opportunity to punch across the aisle at the Democrats for their views. This near-campaign speech pattern from Whitehouse and Kennedy was inappropriate for this hearing.
The first panel comprised individuals directly invited by the chairman and the ranking member, including Masto and Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY). Why a former federal prosecutor and business attorney were called upon to discuss healthcare was left unanswered. Nonetheless, their testimonies were brief, and they appeared more focused on partisan grandstanding than substantive discussion.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The second panel comprised notable advocates and individuals with extensive expertise on the matter. It brought at least some hope for turning the theatrical course of the hearing around into something substantive. It featured Isaac Maddow-Zimet, a data scientist; Ingrid Skop, M.D., FACOG, an obstetrician/gynecologist; Jocelyn Frye, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families; O. Carter Snead, a Notre Dame University law professor, and Lauren Miller, a Texas advocate drawing from her experience. This panel’s makeup felt evenly split due to the standing practice of each party being allowed to bring in witnesses, and their opening statements brought nuanced information in the hope of providing our leaders with their knowledge. The Senators, however, quickly ruined this hope.
This hearing was embarrassing. It could have been used to highlight the consequences and impacts for the women who travel to access abortion. Senators on both sides made a mockery of an informational hearing so they could get their sound bites. Facts matter. The Senators abused their place in this hearing and failed to do their job.