Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clinic Protests topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witness at committee hearing declines to discuss abortion methods, urges focus on FACE Act and clinic protests
Summary
At a committee hearing about protests outside abortion clinics, a witness who identified themself as an advocate for patient access to reproductive health care declined repeated questions about preferred abortion methods and said they would focus on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and the basis of their testimony.
A witness who identified themself as "an advocate for patients having access to the full realm of reproductive healthcare" repeatedly declined to answer questions about preferred abortion methods during a committee hearing and said the proper subject was the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) and protests outside clinics.
The exchange began when a committee member asked the witness, "What's your favorite type of abortion?" and then read graphic descriptions of a variety of methods, including suction abortion and dilation-and-evacuation procedures. After the descriptions, the committee member said the methods sounded "gruesome" and "barbaric and evil." The witness responded consistently that they "stand by" prior testimony and would not adopt the questioner's framing or preference question.
The witness explicitly rejected taking the bait on method descriptions and redirected the hearing to its stated purpose. "I would prefer to talk about the reason that the committee called the hearing and the basis of my expert testimony," the witness said, adding that they wanted to address the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which they said was the reason for the session.
The committee member continued to press with graphic descriptions and repeated questions about whether the witness "preferred" any method. The witness declined each time, repeating that their testimony and the hearing's scope—protests outside abortion clinics and statutory protections under the FACE Act—were the matters they would address.
The exchange did not record any formal motion, vote, or change in committee action; the transcript captures a back-and-forth in which the questioner used inflammatory descriptions and the witness sought to keep the record focused on the legal statute and the basis for their testimony.
The hearing's testimony and exchanges on the FACE Act and clinic protests were the dominant thread in this portion of the record; the witness repeatedly refused to engage on graphic descriptions of abortion methods and instead insisted on discussing legal protections for clinic access and the evidence supporting their testimony.
