tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 22, 2014 8:00pm-10:01pm EST
>> coming up on c-span the rally march for life against abortion then oral rguments challenging a massachusetts law creating buffer zones around abortion clinics. announcessident obama an initiative to prevent sexual campuses.n college marked the 41st wade rsary of the roe v decision legalizing abortion. life annual march for rally eric kantor announced legislation. on this is just over an hour.
and we will all be together, take us to shelter, storm he brother's keep eeper so that the whole world will look like we are not alone♪ this is the first day of the rest of your life first day of the rest of your life because even in the dark you can see the light it's going to be all right, all right♪
♪this is the first day of the est of your life this is the first day of the life f your in the dark you can to besee the light, going all right, oh, it's going to be ♪ll right together, hold us take us to shelter weather the sto torm oh, and i'll be my brother's keep er keeper, so the whole world will not alone♪e are [cheers and applause] >> how are we doing, d.c.? [cheers and applause] cold and myl really
guitar is really out of tune. if we could sing the song. the core t know chorus. strong he was thing we can give is people who believe in of human life and we can demonstrate to the world how ne -- we need god and ive witness to them because this march is about us realizing hat we are all poor and in poverty we need jesus and need his mercy and his love. sing this chorus with me if you know it. ♪ lord, i need you, oh, i need ou very hour i tphaoneed you w one defense, my
righteousness, oh, god, how i you♪ >> god bless you guys. have a good march. >> hello. good afternoon out there. [cheers and applause] to thank matt for that fantastic performance. [cheers and applause] >> i'm patrick kelly and i'm proud to serve as the chairman the march for life. on behalf of the board and whole march for life team i would like to welcome you to the largest civil rights tant demonstration in the world. [cheers and applause] >> this year's theme is decision.a noble it reflects the importance of affirming options
for women. we at the march for is believe that adoption ultimately an act of love that mother with the adoptive family in a bonds of for the very same child. of love for the very same child. before we begin let's join pledge of r the allegiance led by david berke rand rapids knight of the knights of columns -- columbus university of maryland. allegiance to the flag of the united states of for ca and to the republic which it stands, one nation under god indivisible with for all.nd justice
>> thank you, david. hanksgiving for the great collaborative witness of the rthodox and catholic bishop offering our opening prayer i would like to welcome to the odium his grace bishop chancellor of the holy metropolis of chicago who prayer.d the opening his grace will be joined by metropolitans and epresenting the ciriaco church of antioch, orthodox churn of romania. often diocese of orth america, armenian church
of america and roman catholic bishop of the united states. graces. present an honor to be among our brothers and stirs of decisions. faith please join me as we pray. ord jesus christ in your love for humanity came down for us and our salvation being encar conceived in the womb lived virgin mary who mong us teaching us the salvation and crucified and would be all humanity restored to our ancestral dignity. loving kind and mercy to those who know you and eveal the same to those who
know you not. lord of all look upon us your servants who have gathered here capital of our nation to scourge of t the abortion. we gather in your name to all ss to the sanctity of life for you are the life of the wor world. et all gathered here raise their voices and hearts to our fellow citizens and civil affirming that all life is precious in your sight. dignity remember the for which all persons are created in your image and likeness. do not let our zeal consume us a let it shine forth as standard of righteousness and cast aside every anxiety and give good in return for ea each. servants your faithful be exemplars of truth and ustice but also of forgiveness and love. on this day lord of hosts bless servants and let
their testimony reach those in need. authorities have lated turedd -- hrpblg against the rights of free born voted ists who have against the saeupgtsity of life and doctors that have brought death.d parents who made choices to ends callous he womb, some and less interested, others challenged and conflicted. raised in a culture that espouses the right of some to kill. repent ten tense affirm end the life of the champions ch voluntary abortion and defend the indefensible. them, lord, for three know not what they did. who have he innocents been harmed through the scourge of voluntary abortion. of the love, power knowledge
your holy spirit international hearts and minds of those who and e the great gift holiness of life. bless those who choose to do forgive those who have ignored it. to those and comfort who grieve past abortions and trengthen the will of those conflicted by difficult choices and circumstances so that they the sacred gift of life. et our voices and witnesses this day resound throughout the nation as a testimony before you thecreator of all who knows nails of each even from their mother's womb and has counted head of each the and every person so, that before knee will bow giving glory to eternal father with holy and good spirit now and i have and through the amen. all ages,
[cheers and applause] >> thank you, bishop demetrius. when i look out at this enormous see the new face of the culture of life. [cheers and applause] >> i see it in a very special thousands of s of young people who have braved frigid temperatures to come to to deliver a simple message.ound life is beautiful. may be freezing but we are freezing for the best cause in the world. [cheers and applause] >> you all have warm hearts and of the the new face culture of life. many of you may have noticed for life also has a new face. year e spent the last
building an organization that is stronger and more effective than ever. we have a new logo and new and a new staff of dedicated professionals doing work.ordinary we are connected more than ever with people of all religions and who share our pro-life convictions. e are strengthening our presence on capitol hill. working on both sides of the legislation ote that will protect life. social a new robust media presence on facebook, instagram. [cheers and applause] >> our goal is not only to come once a year but to be in touch with you 365 days a and to work with you to build a culture of life in america america. extraordinary
changes to the phamarch for lif taking place under the skillful guidance of one of the young pro-life leaders in america. join me in welcoming the march for life, monahan. >> good afternoon again. is anyone cold out there? >> yeah. >> i want to welcome pro-life america to the phafb for life for life and thank every single one of you for being here. tremendous a sacrifice for you who are brave being these extreme elements to here today but no sacrifice cause.great for this [cheers and applause] also very happy to report a t this morning we received
very special message via twitter pope francis. [cheers and applause] >> let me read it to you. his is propose francis's message to the young people in the united states today for the march for life. march for life in washington with my prayers. us protect all life vulnerable.the most pretty exciting. each ofve a request for you. take a minute today to reply to pope francis. him for his pro-life views and tweeting us today. we gather this morning i'm just going to take a minute or two to say a few things cold.se we are all very i feel compelled to speak about one issue in particular. that is something that has been called the war on women. really mean here is more
specifically a wore on -- war on motherhood. -- this on motherhood war on women has been called the war on women when the real war a war on motherhood. very woman is not defined by her capacity to have children. the reality is that having a a miracle and it is an amazing beautiful gift, the gift of life. [cheers and applause] >> one beautiful example of this a adoption, which bears special witness to the incredible power of motherhood. audience knowsur well that motherhood is defined by sacrifice motivated by love her children. when a woman is facing an nexpected pregnancy and makes the choice to be a birth mother, she's being a heroic mother in sense because she's
making the ultimate sacrifice out of love for her child. so she also helps another family embrace life. to share with you a very 1.21 hing which is that million babies annually are aborted in this country. should be compared to only domestic infant adoptions. there is something that is is rong that for every one baby adopted in our country 64 are aborted. something is very wrong. abortion is antiwoman. antiman andmily and obviously antibaby. not only does it stphouft the one but hurtsttle mom physically and emotionally. or any woman out there who has made this decision you have to know that there will always be restorationling and of your motherhood. we will hear more from nicole in few minutes.
there's another powerful voice working against families and omen and motherhood this year in the healthcare law. in the name of women's health ware being forced by our government groups like the march for life are being forced by our cover drugs and devices that can destroy life in its earliest stages. sadly, these drugs and devices good lsely categorized as for women whereas nothing could be further from the truth. about this more soon from dr. done this harrison. -- donna harrison. but despite this truth is truth, and life is eedom life and you know that better than me and nothing can change that. -- millenialss you know that. for being here today together we are going to end culture of build a
life in the united states. [cheers and applause] >> now it is my great privilege introduce our next speaker majority leader of the united states house of epresentatives who changed his flight to israel to be here. he has represented the seventh district of virginia since 2001 and currently in his second term as he is an ardent pro-lifer. >> good afternoon! thank you very much for all being here today. these ou for brave being unbelievably cold temperatures. hank you for coming to give voice to our cause protecting
life. [cheers and applause] >> i especially want to welcome from the commonwealth of virginia, the seventh district in particular. i believe that one day in the not too distant future our be victorious in use we will prevail securing a culture of life in america. i believe that for one very simple reason. the truth is there is an and enable right to life this right extends to the unborn. not a political truth subject to the whims of man. a moral truth and was ritten as one famous virginian noted by our creator. all attempts to rewrite or truth may prevail
in the moment but will ultimately fail. marchers, the don't mind ho enduring the worst weather washington could throw at you change opportunity to one heart, one mind. movement not so secret weapon. strongest advocates and those of us in public office are merely fortunate to stand on shoulders. ow, i stand here today with colleagues, with others, with much hope. some of you have been marching and have 0 years endured many setbacks including of a, aboutxpansion coverage in obama care. [booing] now t it is important more
than ever that we remain strong and stand together. allow the opponents of life to continually weaken fabric of our country. they need to know and they need understand that we will continue to march, we will educate, we will continue to advocate and we will fight for the unborn. [cheers and applause] > because it is the right and moral thing to do. us in the house of representatives will be right there beside you. last year the house, for the unborn me, passed the act.d protection decent l is an utterly and moral proposal that would
in-laws of physical pain and abortion can cause an and would protect that child. this remains a top priority for for my cheolleagues. next week o announce the house will vote once and for ll to end taxpayer funding for a, abo abortion. [cheers and applause] >> the no taxpayer fund for act written by our good friend and colleague chris smith respect the morals and consciences of millions of ultimately will save lives. getting there bill through the however, and signed by the president will be a much tougher task. i can make you this promise. he people's house will stand
for life. and we will do everything in our power to make sure that our the sanctity of life are reflected in the law of the land. thanks to you and the greater community around the community and with the help of -- pro life te herd s like my cheeolleagues i know we will continue to make every s so that one day child in america will be welcomed to law and life. thank you all very, very much. [cheers and applause] cantor for , leader
your leadership and sharing your thoughts with us. ust a reminder about the cold temperatures today, if the cold is starting to get to you and we need medical assistance, have two first aid tents located in to the sound towers out the crowd. e are very fortunate to have several pro-life legislators with us this afternoon. i would like to take a moment to them.uce of course, we had leader eric house of virginia the majority leader. we also have representative of new jersey. [cheers and applause] vick si entative missouri.f keith rossless of pennsylvania. of esentative andy harris maryland. congressman mike kelly of pennsylvania. pittinger ive robert
of north carolina. congressman brad winthrop of ohio. congressman bob latta of their. and representative ann wagner from missouri. [cheers and applause] very share remarks i'm happy to introduce congressman the smith of new jersey, co-chair of the bipartisan congressional pro-life caucus. congressman smith has been co-care of the pro-life caucus ver a quarter of a century and has been a courageous leader in advancing pro-life legislation in congress. please join me in welcoming mr. chris smith of new jersey. [cheers and applause] >> thank you for joining this magazinenary march and theufr celebration of god's gift of life and recommitment of women and children
from the violence of abortion. despite the fact that president is using stealth, coercive power of the state to promote abortion iolence, the pro-life movement is alive are and well and making significant and sustained progress. years a recordhree 200 pro-life laws have been the staeutsdtes. although the u.s. senate leadership refuses to even vote on pro-life not the on, that is case in the house understood peaker boehner and majority leader eric cantor. a majority of the house, as you works to end the iscrimination against baby girls killed by sex selection a, about. the real war on women.
ther bill that protects unborn children from excruciating pain. abortionists are victim makers and since 1973 56 million children have been brutally slain, a to the ll that equates entire population of england. n the other hand, the compassionate people in the pro-life movement have for over d, embraced, me oved and deeply cherished both mothers at risk and co-victims post-abortive woman. finally, ladies and gentlemen, to the passage of obama care americans were repeatedly told by president including in a speech to a joint session of quote, s, that, and i under our plan no federal used to fund e
abortion. true. that were only under obama care billions of ollars in the forms of tax credits are today buying abortion, subsidizing health in exchanges s throughout the country. like the president's promise you can keen your insurance plan if you like it, the massive abortion in g of obama care insurance plans solemn promise. of the d obama care master expansion of public unding ask your senators, ask your house of representatives to support the no taxpayer funding sponsored by 165 house members and a full quarter of the united states senate. as you heard, eric cantor is legislation for a vote next week. finally, by the grace of god and because of you, your prayers and
winning., we are [cheers and applause] to the youth especially, or grow weary or discouraged. your generation will end abortion. thank you. [cheers and applause] such a blessing to here from congressman smith. also excited to have lapinski the an other co-chair of the pro-life onference but he is stuck on a tarmac in illinois. he was excited to be here but he won't be able to join us. we are also delighted to have with us representative from and michigan. [cheers and applause]
>> our next speaker i'm so excited to introduce you to. courageous pro-life legislator, adoption advocate, other and former public school teacher. representative vicky hartsler of elected by the people missou missouri's fourth congressional district in 2010. that time she served her legislator a state and strong advocate for families in missouri. congresswoman missouri.sler of >> thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you so much. an hpb to be here today with so many pro-life heroes from across this country. it is so great to see missouri right to life over here. represent the fourth congressional district. we are here today to remember millions of lives devastated with abortion and to pledge to uphold the
most fundamental important right n our nation and that is the right to life. abortion hurts everyone. heart. a beating it leaves emotional wounds with -- for y carry doctor life and robs men the privilege fatherhood. there are no winners with this procedure. that is why we must do power to end our this devastating practice. 1973 over ely, since 56 million babies have died at abortionists totaling 1.2 million a year. here are more babies who per shall each year through -- p perish each year through who live inn people an entire congressional district. these numbers translate into lives. millions of babies who would have grown up to be our our bors, friends, teammates, co-workers and community leaders. knows?
if lives were not taken perhaps we would have a cure for cancer some other medical breakthrough. think about it. children died from abortion than americans died in war, civil ionary ar, world war i, world war ii, korean, vietnam and gulf war combined. this must stop. [cheers and applause] >> every life is valuable and detain -- ordained purpose. pregnancies are not baby is but no unwanted. one in eight couples have trouble getting pregnant and thousands are waiting for adoption. caring men and women who long it precious words mommy and daddy. there were -- in 2007
infant re only 18,078 adoptioned in the united states. if there were 1.2 million babies the chance to live, grow and be part of a loving family who was waiting them home. welcome this must change. and our leaders must abortion and start encouraging adoption. women who choose life for their make an adoption plan for their child should be championed and supported. only do these enable an nnocent baby to live they turn an empty house into a home and a household into a family. i should know. that is what happened to my husband and me over 14 years ago when a brave birth mother chose to her baby.nts
it is a gift we will always be grateful for -- eternally grateful for and one which we can never replay but thankful there a wonderful god who knows and sees and he will.nd i know i wish all couples who long to be parents have that chance. the children whose lives ere snuffed out through apportion had a chance to live, run and play and be part of a family. wanted.e [cheers and applause] >> that is why i'm unashamed lyi life as a united states representative. i know that is why you work assisting him who faced a pregnancy and relaying abortion, that it stops a beating heart. your advocacy matters. that you are all
doing support women. s paul said, let us not become weary in doing good. for us at a proper time we will if we do not give up. est assured i and my pro-life colleagues here and ones who could not be here, we will not give up. we will continue to do all that we can on capitol hill to ensure americans born and yet to be born enjoy the most basic rights to life. thank you. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applaus [cheers and applause] >> i just want to say i know it so cold, if there are any emergencies where people are extremely cold and need to get a warming tent the first aid tents right there, if you an emergency go to the first aid tent. see that the o crowd includes so many students and young adults who made trimsment ery long
many of you have been active on our social media and we love to hear true. if you don't already like us on on book or follow us instagram or twitter do so today and similar your experiences and being with thech hash tag why away march, all one word. we want to help you march back and we want you to continue acting on your pro-life convictions. by texting the 99000 and in the content of the text message put march 4 life.number it is up on our banners. you should be able to see that. next i'm so excited to introduce our next speaker. who made this t life. o the phamarch for she is a young woman with a remarkable story, elected to the miss homecoming by the you auburn on the platform
for women who find and elves in a pregnancy adoption crisis. i'm very happy to introduce you ann d everyoutton. >> good morning. i know it is quite chilly out here and me being from alabama used to the cold. but being a college student i'm my empted to check into regularly scheduled program or tune in for the normalities of life. believe in i something bigger than myself and because i believe in the giver himself i'm called to be take an issue, a congress and transform it and walk it out into a story. recently i had such an opportunity as this to walk my through my homecoming campaign at my own university. completely inspired by
britawritten. but my birth mother was a woman and through some series of events she was the victim of sexual assault, faced with the ultimatum of abort the child or suffer divorce. took her to birmingham and she found life children walked in for counseling and walked out ready to put me up for adoption. through that decision here i am standing before you 22 years lat later. [cheers and applause] >> not only this but i had that pportunity to share that with 25,000 college students and here i am at the washington mall in the lord has used this and ding to his will purpose. ordainedis god giving, and breathed. i'm so glad to be here before ou making an impact and
affecting lives as they come in boy, ial package, not a girl or age or gender or race ut my spirit of friendship calls out to my father and cries -- cries utah to you and thank you -- cries out for you for having me this morning. [cheers and applause] >> she is adorable, isn't she? thank you, molly anne. we believe in the rights of the child but we know abortion hurts women. our next speaker unfortunately this firsthand. she will share her story with you. the last two decades sharing the stories of difficulty of sharing abortion of healing. please give a very warm welcome pro-life geous .dvocate, nicole
afternoon. we represent the silent moral campaign. we are women who have experienced abortion and we are of how it truth changed us at the supreme court this afternoon. thought i would be pregnant as a teen. we thought we were in love. student athlete with a bright college future and a baby would ruin my life. to tell anyone. i felt trapped and saw no other choice. clinic the staff didn't provide any counsel to me about my options or the complications with result. i vividly remember the sound and vacuum.ty of the they took my money, my baby and my self-respect. the denial set in immediately and i was relieved yet sad and depressed. discussed that day abortion.he
i thought lie with return to normal but i was never the same. relationship ended and the suicidal thoughts began. unlovable, empty and so alone. for over 10 years i lived with shame and feeling inadequate and unworthy of love. and failed relationships became a workaholic. didn't define me by past sins. and hope andveness healing through jesus christ. jesus. [cheers and applause] he is so good he heals us and named my baby peter and fund-raiser myself. i hoped to have another baby but the reality set in. conceive another child. infertility was my cross. by god's grace i married a wonderful man and we were adopted banana
-- baby boys. mothers gave their children life and gave us a family. y story is one of over 2,000 abortion ls posted on testimony.com. if you are here and hurting from bortion visit abortion forgiveness.com. we stand here because you have a choice, america. choose life. choose adoption. we are silent no more. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. that was beautiful. >> thank you, nicole. pro-life america. [cheers and applause] i'm proud to serve as a board member of the march for life.
i had the privilege of recognizing our student contest winners. life focus on the affirming message of adoption we and high le school school students to reflect on our theme by submitting essays for the annual contest. the snow unfortunately kept some winners away but i want it recognize them. from our middle school division the essay winner lauren ohio. from our poster winner christine from phoenixville, pennsylvania. contest winner sydney hunter. and who was able to make it and up with us the essay inner for high school madison mcguire from columbia, maryland. to see all of the winning free to check out the journal which is available here on the mall. posters show nd
why these young leaders march. us ure to share with all of why you march for life by laking us on facebook and following us on instagram and -- g the hash tag why away why we march. for life text march to 99,000 to hear about ptkaeutsdz from us throughout the -- updates throughout the year. and from here i can't see the crud.of the -- end of the crowd so get out your phones and cameras and take a picture and tweet it, post it it on book and put instagram and show everyone out there what pro-life america really looks like. now, please welcome back to the , patrick chairman kelly. you very much, tim. in the ongoing effort to target community the
abortion industry is showing healthcare and not are so-called freedom of choice them.t truly motivates today we are happy it welcome a oung woman who truly demonstrates that the latino strong y is still a vibrant pro-life community. it is a community that is growing and sharing its pro-life around the country. join me in welcoming to the giovanna romero. >> thank you. good afternoon, everyone. i'm a young professional in new like many of you i of every the value
ingle human life and as a latina can no longer be silent. to.cannot afford latinas and african-americans systematically targeted by the culture of death and we can no longer stay silent. we are the pro-life generation accountable e held for what we did or did not do to genocide. who is with me to fight this good fight? [cheers and applause] the pro-life generation and we will make a history. speaking spanish]
>> we are the pro-life generati generation. let them hear it all over latin mark. to abortion.an end can i get an amen? >> amen. , thank you very much. >> our next speaker is board obstetrician and gynecolog gynecologyologist dr. donna harrison. she is pro-life because she is good and knows the chemical and surgical abortions that are harmful to women. director of the american association of pro life obstetricians nd she and her colleagues educate patients, lnerable
the general public pregnancy center counselors and medical medical and the psychological complications associated with induced abortion. to the stage dr. donna harrison. clears cheers you, jeane. on behalf of -- >> you have to use the microphone. representing the pro-life obstetricians and in this country. [cheers and applause] patients hurt by abortion. births that eterm happens after abortion. we see the women who are sad and are committing suicide. these are our patients that we want to see anwe end to abortion in this country. here to talk with you
about the front lines of abortion because they are changing. front line of abortion used to be the abortion clinic and room. is your dorm the front line used to be the hospitals and now it is the who are given drugs and sent home to abort on their own. you now become the workers on the front line. be able to you to talk intelligently to your roommates and your friends about what these drugs actually do. jeanie mentioned there are drugs that are labeled as but arey contraceptives the same kind of chemical that is used as abortion. say oh, you hear people you are just against for aception, what you are is life and life for the embryo. fertilization. we have information on our and we want to be a
resource for you because you now line on the ont battle for abortion. we want to stand with you. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, dr. harrison. we are actually coming pretty rally. the close of our you are looking pretty cold so i will remind you about the first aid tents. up, guys. as we are coming to a close we -- weo take a few minutes don't have a few minutes so hang tight -- we want to take a few to recognize the organizations with whom we work throughout the year in of cating for a culture life. while we all take different pproaches and suffer different constituencies we share our strong pro-life views and come year er here every single with you to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. those joining me on the stage ow are not all of our pro-life
rally allies but at this time i'm happy to recognize a number of them. include 40 days for life. [cheers and applause] >> alliance defending freedom. [cheers and applause] american association of pro og-gyns. project.renewal americans reunited for life and then there were none. we are talking about former abortion clinic workers who is a -- life florida pro-life.lorida is -- care net. ethics and culture university of notre dame. c-span. charlotte loathier institute. hristian medical and dental
association. concerned women of america. eagle forum. council.search family talk. international. the italian march for life. knights of columbus. free for life. declaration. and there are many more. i pray i haven't missed any up thank you all for your very hard work. we love and respect you so much. students for life of america. clea [cheers and applause] >> thank you guys. thank you.
our next speaker is a charismatic husband and father two o who is the host of radio shows. he is the host of grounded with dobson part of the family talk network and through his how he reaches thousands of listeners with a pro-life message of hope and favorite. his so co-hosts along with father dr. dobson's long running dr. jameswinning show dobson's family talk. ryan strives to be an example of christian inspiration to all. to the stage ryan dobson. [cheers and applause] how are you doing? are you cold? >> yeah. it is freezing here. thank you for being here. braving this weather. i'm here to say thank you to you. all of you. ou may or may not know but my
birth mother was 17 years old, she was not married and didn't have a boyfriend and was terrified. know what to do. her dad and her church put her n the doors of a pregnancy resource center around people like you opened their arms to of showed her the love christ and gave her an alternative. i'm here around alive today because of this movement. i'm here to say thank and you will continue to say thank you ended in the it united states. [cheers and applause] alone.i'm not here i'm pro life because my parents were pro-life. me for 4 1/2 r years before i got adopted. pleasure in test the world to work with my dad every day. will you please help me in my hero, dr. james dobson. [cheers and applause] >> greetings to all of you people.
your faces are cold but your are and hearts are on fire, right? what a wonderful thing to see cold day like this. work.'t make my mouth but i'm so glad to be here. ryan's story which is one of the highlights of my life. about my story. 1973.s january 22, i was on a fairway -- freeway in los angeles driving home from work and the word game that the legalized rt had abortion for any reason or for through the pregnancy of women. grieved over it because i knew it meant millions of babies die.d
who would have known it would be 41 illion by this point years later? that, i was a ter professor of pediatrics at niversity of southern california school of medicine and children's hospital of los angeles. in the ast appointment day was with a young couple, a wife. and his she had been having abdominal for tests d went in and they found that she was pregnant. she had had a lot of x-rays. the doctors call came and said child.e to abort this it could be death. could be blind. logically neural handy captain. they were christians. they came to see me. asked what i would do. day, i to them on that
don't know where this is going and i don't know what the outcome will be. don't know what your baby will if that were surely and me, -- shirley and me, i would say give life to that a.b.. -- baby. [applause] godthat baby live and let have his plan. they did. they took my advice. that was 41 years ago. actually 38 years ago. that baby was born perfectly normal. a beautiful, healthy little girl. [applause] old.s now 38 years she is married to a pastor. they live in the inner-city, one of the most dangerous places they could live.
they feed homeless people and bring hope to the destitute. , 38 years old, her name is christy, she has been a joy to everyone who has known her. i say to you and those who are if youg on television are facing a similar situation, i can't come us what the outcome will be. no one knows. let your baby live. [applause] thank you for being here. thank you for braving the cold. thank you for caring. look at the young people who are here. [applause] you are the hope of the future. together, we are going to win this fight. god's lessing to you. -- blessing to you.
>> thank you, dr. dotson. one of my heroes. i missed a few names. oh i will go through them and then we will finish this thing up. leadership institute, let freedom ring. national black pro-life union. national religious broadcasters. online for life. operation rescue. -- personhood usa. republican national committee. silent no more. .tudents for life southern baptists. the national right to life committee. thank you all for being here. before we begin the actual work, i will ask you if you have trash, trash it -- drop it in the trash area. i will invite back to the stage
the wonderful dr. james thompson -- dobson to close with a minute of prayer. >> let's pray together. heavenly father, i thank you for every person who was here. every person who came to speak on behalf of the precious babies. i pray for all the women out there who have been through an abortion and are dealing with guilt and sorrow. i pray you will be with each one. lord, bless this movement. children of the future have a chance at life. i think you for this group that has gathered, this huge throng today. we give you praise. these babies are yours. we will protect them. namene name we pray -- thy
♪ created equal is about changing this culture. that would is what we have to do. dr. martin luther king jr. said -- what kind of extremist will you be? an extremist for the preservation of justice or for the extension of in justice? >> support the march for life. please be generous. it is your donation. supporte generous and the mark for -- the march for
assaults on campus. >> on the next washington journal, challenges facing cities. we will talk to the baltimore mayor and houston mayor. then a discussion of the room publican party -- the future of the republican party. bill kristol, founder and editor of the weekly standard, will be here. the history of the flood insurance program and changes brought about by hurricanes katrina and sandy. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m.. thursday, the u.s. conference of mayors here is from the housing and urban development secretary shaun donovan. that is live at 11:15 a.m. eastern. and then a look at some of the rising young leaders the
republican party. we are live from the rnc meeting. >> i would like to add a personal word with regard to an issue that has been of great concern to all americans over the past year. i refer of course to the investigations of the so-called watergate affair. as you know, i have invited to the special prosecutors voluntarily a great deal of material. i believe i have invited all the material he needs to conclude his investigations and to proceed to prosecute the guilty and clear the innocent. toelieve the time has come bring that investigation and the other investigations of this matter to an end. [applause] one year of watergate is enough. >> a look back at five decades
of notable state of the union addresses from lbj to george bush. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span three. that is leading up to barack obama' 14 state of the union address live on c-span radio and at c-span.org. >> the supreme court heard oral arguments in a case testing the ity of ational massachusetts law creating buffered zones around abortion clinics. they argued that the zones limit the free speech of antiabortion activists. this is one hour. >> we will hear arguments in this case. >> may it please the court. we have held that public sidewalks are natural and public
place for citizens to exchange information and ideas. the court has held that public sidewalks hold a special place in first amendment analysis. this law makes it a crime to enter into public sidewalks, even for the purpose of peaceful conversation or leafleting. the law applies to abortion clinics throughout the state regardless of the circumstances. massachusetts asked this court to uphold that statute under the time place and manner test, but the law fails each aspect of that test. the law is not narrowly tailored to those interests for three reasons. first, it applies regardless of whether there is any threat of obstruction for congestion at all.
even when the sidewalks are empty and open. mrs. mccullen does her counseling on tuesdays and wednesdays. she testified she is sometimes alone when she does the counseling. nancy clark testified that 90% of the time, she is alone. the statue that makes it illegal for them to engage in peaceful and consensual conversation on a public sidewalk for fear of obstruction and congestion is not narrowly tailored. >> there is a considerable history of disturbances and blocking the entrance. it doesn't know in advance to our the well behaved people and who are the people who want behaved well.
after the disturbance occurs, it is too late. the state is trying to say, we want to make sure that the entrance is not blocked, and the only word can do that is to have a rule that applies to everyone. we can't screen people to know who will be well behaved and who will be disruptive. >> this state is wrong about that fact for many reasons. there are many tools that the state has or could enact that would deal with that concern. if i may backup, there are two interests that the state asserts when it makes that argument. they say that they are actual bad actors. who have deliberately blocked the door and interfered with access. there are also some circumstances where there are enough people on the sidewalks that even lawful, consensual
composition might accidentally block the door. there are tools to deal with both of those circumstances. section e of the statute makes it illegal to impede, block, obstruct, or even hinder somebody's access. that section of the statute is not challenged here. >> i should ask this of the other side. do you know when was the last time that massachusetts prosecuted somebody for obstructing entrance to an abortion clinic? >> i believe the last site in the record -- as of 1997, there was a decision a previous case against people who would been adjudicated to have broken rules. they have never brought up case under the federal face law which has been in existence for 20 years. >> there have been laws against obstruction for this period.
and you say only once in 1997, that was the last time? >> not a face prosecution. >> you are not taking the position that 1997 was the last time the entrance was obstructed? the police were called to open access to a clinic? are you taking that position was the last time was 1997? >> i couldn't say that it happened -- that i know. i know there was testimony that claimed it happened. my argument is the state has tools to deal with that. >> the state says, of that particular tool, it is a hard thing to prosecute. you had to show intent. there's a lot of obstruction and interference that goes on naturally just because there are a lot of people.
that is an insufficient tool is what the state argues. >> the state is claiming there are the deliberate bad actors blocking the door. if the police say, get out of the doorway, either they move or they don't, in which case the intent is clear. they have prosecuted 45 cases and gotten 70 convictions. >> sometimes there are bad actors. more often, it is a function of lots of people. your clients and all of them want to be as close as possible to the site. that naturally leads to and interference with normal access. >> that is the second part of the state's argument. i don't think it is narrowly tailored to that concern. the law applies -- the evidence is that the crowd happened at essentially one clinic, one-day,
one time. there are video cameras rolling and police officers present. there is no reason the police cannot say, move out of the doorway. >> does the record show how many clinics are covered? >> i believe there are 11 or 12 clinics. >> how far do you want to go in your concession? imagine the state has two groups of people. one group feels with the other is doing is wrong. the second group feels we want to do it. everyone is in a fragile state of mind. one group wants to shout as loud as it can at the other, please, do not do it. the other says, please, leave me alone.
does the state have the right in your opinion to say it is tough to referee this. so we will have a 35 foot boundary? you want to the evidence does not us to fight? >> i don't mean to concede it. a solution that is done with painted lines. >> now you are into the details. i want to know about the principal. we can think of many situations irrespective of subject matter, where there is a need for refereeing. i just want to know if the concept is ok with you or not.
>> generally speaking, no. >> so protesters like we had at the snyder case. they can go up to the public sidewalk outside the church and put up the signs that they did and about the leaflets that they did, talking about that veteran in ways that they did? that is ok? >> a couple points. >> there was no evidence there that they were disruptive. they were just expressing their first amendment rights. that is the potential for disruption because of the sentiments. >> agreed. a statute that works like this that would make it illegal to engage in peaceful conversation on sidewalks near a church or funeral, i think clearly is not
permitted by the first amendment. >> in schneider, they could still be heard? >> i think -- perhaps for part of the funeral possession. >> you see why i'm trying to narrow it. i thought it was pretty important that the demonstrators were behind a hill somewhere. the police restricted where they could go. many states have enacted similar laws. i thought that was important. maybe it would have come out differently, and you could argue that. i am trying to narrow it. to what extent do i have to look at this particular set of facts, in which case we are into the hearings, and to what extent is there a matter principle. any help you can give me is appreciated. >> the matter of principle is that a lot that makes it illegal
to engage in consensual, quiet conversation on a public sidewalk -- an act that makes that a criminal act for which he can go to prison is not permissible under the first amendment. the federal military funeral protest law is drawn for acts that disrupt the peace and disorder of the funeral. >> are you saying you cannot do an act that says, it is too hard to figure out what is not disruptive. we will just say, 25 feet. or 25 feet around any facility. that is never permissible? >> generally speaking, i think any law like that runs into a big first amendment problem. the past first amendment decisions have said that
precision regulation is required. there isn't nearly as much distortion of the marketplace of ideas as happens when you did what massachusetts did here. >> i was intrigued by one of the example that you gave in your brief. you said slaughterhouses. let's say that there are animal- rights activists who try to interfere with access in and out of slaughterhouses. state passes a regulation that says there's a ton of interference, it is preventing the operation of these facilities, employees cannot get in or suppliers, suppliers -- slaughterhouses are leaving the state, so we will set up a zone. 30 feet. it is hard to enforce anything else. let's call it 30 feet. it is hard to enforce anything else.
my reaction is what is wrong with that? just have everybody take a step back. >> what is wrong with that is a couple things. this court's decisions require precision of regulation. an injunction against groups and individuals who have interfered with access, keeping them back, i think that is permissible. it is the generally applicable statute that is tied to just one particular often protested event that gives the state enormous power. >> one of the examples here in the amicus briefs is a state law that creates a buffer zone around every fraternal lodge. what would you say about that? >> it is difficult to imagine
the government interest. i don't know the particulars of the law and what it restricts. if it restricts peaceful conversation on public sidewalks, i would say that should not be permissible under the first amendment. generally speaking, the idea of the government picking one particular item and saying, around this, the character of the public forum changes from a place where people can have peaceful conversations to a place we will imprison them for doing that, that is a dramatic restrict the first amendment rights. if there is a particular group or individual, you can get in injunction against that behavior. but the state cannot say, even peaceful discussion and leafleting >> but go back to the slaughterhouse case. there might be people who say it is important to talk to the employees. and tell them why they should get different jobs.
there are some people who think signs and chants are great, but there are others who want to make one-to-one contact. you say we have to let whatever interference goes on, even if there is a record of real obstruction, of real interference of the facility, in order to allow that to happen -- i think that is pretty hard. >> i'm not saying it has to let it go on. i'm saying it has better tools than illuminating the peaceful, consensual conversation. >> suppose it were given that those laws do not work. could there then be a consideration of a buffer zone? the laws simply do not work. >> if the laws simply do not
work, i think the government could make a case that it has a compelling interest and this is the least restrictive means of doing it. >> that was a better way of getting out what i was talking about. let's assume that the colorado case's right. this particular restriction is more restrictive than colorado in two important respects. the reason that they did that is they had hearings in massachusetts, and they discover that the colorado law didn't really work. what are we supposed to do? are we supposed to know -- as long as the hearings are legitimate and have good
explanations on whether the zone is eight feet and consensual or 35 feet and different amounts of sidewalk, when does it become up to them? were not legislators. we don't know the situation in massachusetts. how can we do more than that? >> on this detail, what i think the court should look for, the state said they did not even convict a single person of one unconventional -- >> we all understand that. it is one thing to try to prove an intent, particularly when people are in good faith. it is another thing to actually stop the congestion and protect the interest of the woman who wants to have the abortion, maybe in a fragile state of mind, and this kind of thing
could interfere with her health, etc. we know that eight feet with the bubble is ok. we are not sure about 35 feet, and they have an evidentiary record. >> a few things. the reason this court gave for allowing that eight foot no approach zone was it about protecting unwilling listeners. >> do accept that the record shows it did not work well in the sense that justice breyer -- >> not at all. >> all i recall is the police found it difficult to apply a bubble, eight feet or whatever it is. they did not say that massive obstruction and protests are occurring, preventing people from -- that was not the finding?
>> that is why i asked you that question. it happens that the police testify with some evidence that the eight feet doubled does not work. the difference is about half -- they have some evidence that we can't enforce this colorado thing very well. >> i agree. if you send me 35 feet further back, you might hear me but i would suggest you would perceive it differently. i would suggest that would be a significant difference. >> i'm not denying the difference. i am asking you -- i want you to
explain what it is in the record, from your point of view or lack thereof, that means that the constitution intervenes to prevent massachusetts from doing it. >> the constitutional narrow tailoring test requires that not restrict more speech than necessary to serve the government's interest. >> how long does it take from when you enter the buffer zone until you reached the clinic entrance? >> i assume 7-10 seconds. >> so the conversation can go on before the 7-10 seconds. there's not much you can do. >> the evidence in this record is that the inability to speak to people close to the clinic
has a dramatic effect on their ability to reach the audience. if they happen to be walking in the same set of the zone, you may have a shot. you may have a shot if you are the right spot. >> and if you know they're going to the clinic. >> places like worcester and springfield, where the only chance to reach the audiences by standing on the public sidewalk, if you have to stand 35 feet back, the evidence shows there is centrally zero chance to reach the audience. >> isn't that just the function they have a private parking lot? they drive into the parking lot and you can talk to them anyway? >> i don't that is a fair characterization. there is a public sidewalk on which you had the right to engage in speech.
the fact that the law pushes you 35 feet back is what makes it impossible. many people don't want the information. but some do. and they have acted on information. this law makes it harder, almost impossible in places like worchester. >> is there a size where you would say it is ok? >> as the zone gets smaller, the imposition on the speech rights gets less and less and better and better. >> that goes back to justice ginsburg's question. how is the law supposed to deal with the fluctuating conditions at a particular site? >> this is not something that should be addressed but the statute like this, this is something that should be addressed with the statute for large crowds or dispersal statute.
the amicus brief talks about how concord, new hampshire and los angeles deal with these problems. >> it is the case that not only abortion counselors are excluded, everybody is? anybody who wants to talk to anybody? this is a dead speech zone? >> in many respects it is. it is no different than the speech free zone in the jews for jesus case. it's a place where the government claimed that can turn off the first amendment. >> you can't sell hats there. you can't beg there. >> they have agreed other things, but also speech.
>> employees are permitted to speak within the scope of their employment. >> they have eliminated speech for all people. the attorney general reads this to -- >> i don't think that interpretation does very much. >> -- determines scope of employment. in this statute, it means getting to work and leaving work. >> the attorney general says it is more than just getting to work. i don't believe that they have
the authority to do that. i don't think they could go arrest somebody who happened to speak about abortion when they work for an abortion clinic. even if they could limit it to doing their job, you end up with a problem with that the ninth circuit ninth circuit found. the state says, mrs. mccullen says may i offer you an alternative? that is content-based. the government doesn't get to decide that you can make decisions based on content. >> am i correct that the attorney general's regulation made this even more content- based? >> i agree. that is one reason that interpretation is unconstitutional.
the government can say to people, we won't arrest you unless you talk about abortion. that mirrors the state's exemption of people walking through the zone. you can walk through, provided that the individual doesn't do anything else such as express their views on abortion. >> it's that you can't talk about anything. the content isn't based on abortion. it says you can't talk about anything. >> the intervention about employees is speech about abortion. >> if you're going to the zone just to get somewhere, not to get to the clinic, and you are walking with a companion, can't you speak with your companion? >> the attorney general has
taken multiple positions on that. in the lower court, it was that you can't talk about abortion or partisan issues. they said you could not wear a cleveland indians shirt. either way, the government doesn't have the ability to say who gets to speak and does not get to speak. >> thank you, counsel. ms. miller? >> mr. chief justice. petitioners can and do protest abortion in massachusetts. they can do it in the public spaces. >> this is not a protest case. they don't want to protest. they want to talk to the women who are about to get abortions and try to talk them out of it. i think it distorts it to say what they want to do is protest abortion. if it was a protest, keeping them back 35 feet might not be so bad.
they can scream and yell and hold up signs from that distance. what they can't do is talk the woman out of the abortion. it is a counseling case, not a protest case. >> i would say it is a congestion case. certainly they can have those conversations right in front of the abortion facility. they are moved back a few feet your >> 35 feet is a ways. from this bench to the end of the court. if you imagine the chief justice as where the door would be, as most of the width of the courtroom. it is pretty much this courtroom. that's a lot of space. >> as a factual matter, i did want to point out that in boston, the door is recessed. it is a private entrance. the 35 feet aren't from the door. it is only about 23 feet. >> i thought it was two car
lengths. >> exactly right, your honor. >> if we can go back to scalia's question. he was saying is not a protest case, it is about conversation. that is what i want to know. does the evidence show that? the evidence upon which massachusetts based its decision. the evidence show that what was involved was common conversations between one person trying to counsel another -- or does it show something else? >> it certainly showed some denials. experience showed there had to be a certain amount of space around the facilities. we had pro-choice advocates swearing and screaming at pro- life advocates.
you had people jockeying for position. >> you could have a law against screaming and shouting within 35 feet. or protesting within 35 feet. is that more narrowly tailored? with these people want to do is to speak quietly and a friendly manner, not a hostile manner. >> experiences show that even individuals who wanted to engage in quiet, peaceful conversation were creating congestion. >> there are some people who are peaceable, in which case i would except justice scalia's suggestion that this is a counseling case. you said other evidence that suggested there were other people who were screaming,
pushing, and shouting. that's a like a protest case. the reason they found it difficult to write a statute that distinguishes one from the other is what? why do people write statutes that sometimes do not make these fine distinctions? >> didn't make a fine distinction because it didn't matter whether they were being peaceful -- >> could you have written a statute that would work? >> it would have been difficult. >> why 35 feet? >> experience showed some amount of space needed to be open. then it was a question of looking at past experience. prior injunctions.
in planned parenthood v bell, which is cited on page two, there is a 50 foot buffer zone imposed. we knew that a 15 foot buffer zone would be acceptable if responding to a similar problem. the legislature was aware that some amount of space needed to be created. chose 35 feet as a reasonable response. a reasonable amount of space around the facility. >> is there anything in the record -- the activity is co- mingled? i knew you were going to nod your head? is there anything in the record that suggests it is too tough to say whether they are counseling somebody or screaming at somebody? is there any evidence in the record that would suggest that?
you should say yes. [laughter] >> and i will. the best description is commissioner evans's state of them functioning >> assume it to be true that an elderly lady was successful and had communciation with 100 women was unable to talk to even one after the law. assume that is true. does that have a bearing on the analysis? and on justice breyer's question? about whether the law can be written to protect that kind of
activity but prevent obstruction and blocking? >> nobody is guaranteed any specific form of communication. there is no guarantee, as a doctrinal matter, to close quite conversation. the question is, are there adequate alternatives? in this instance there are adequate alternatives. >> you say there's no guarantee of talking quietly? you want me to write an opinion that there is no right to converse on an issue quietly? >> i would give you an example. >> i still don't know -- this goes to justice breyer's question. you can't write an ordinance
that says obstruction, intimidation, blocking is prohibited, and still of the kind of conversation i described earlier and i want you to assume to be true for the purposes of this question. >> we couldn't hear. that was not the problem. the problem was making the fine distinction. >> in these cases, when you address one problem, you have a duty to protect the speech that is lawful. >> you do as long as your protection is narrowly tailored to your interests. >> it is impossible to write the type of statute we are discussing now according to you. >> it would be enormously difficult to write a statute
that addresses the problem and interests here where you are making that kind of distinction. >> let me ask you about a different distinction? a woman is approaching the zone. an employee of the facility approaches her and another who is not approaches her also. one says, this is a safe facility. the other says, it is not. under this statute, the first has not and the second has. the only difference between the two is that they have expressed a different viewpoint. one says it is safe, and the other does not. how could this be considered viewpoint neutral? >> what it distinguishes between is what they are doing.
if she is performing her job, escorting the person inside, and not cluttering up the buffer zone, which was the reason the statute was enacted, that person could say that. you judge it on what she is doing, not what she is saying. >> what she is doing is what she is saying. one says it is safe, the other does not. they are the only people in the zone. they are the only three people in the zone. the difference is a viewpoint difference. >> what the legislature has done is created a circle around these interests is. it has only permitted particular conduct in the buffer zone. to allow people to get in and out and traffic to move. unless you have a purpose to be in the zone, you cannot be
there. that's what the statute is addressing. >> is it a permissible purpose to say this is a safe facility? but not permissible to say it is unsafe? >> the statute is not focused on the person's speech. it is focused on what they are doing in the zone. >> the consequence is what is described by scalia. are you saying the consequences are irrelevant? >> i would not say that. >> it seems to me you should answer his question. >> with regard to viewpoint discrimination, it allows people people to go in and out. and people to go back and forth on the sidewalk. it allows snow shovelers. >> you could have created a completely silent zone. i don't know whether that would be permissible, but that would
be a different question. you could say, nobody can speak here. they can go in and do maintenance, but they cannot utter a word. that would be a different statute. the statute says there is an exception for employees of the facility, if they are operating within the scope of their employment, and coming up and saying it is a safe facility is within the scope of their employment -- how do you justify that? one can speak and say that during the other cannot. >> i would argue that speech in that circumstance. the employee doing her job and not unnecessarily cluttering the zone. that speech is simply incidental to the permissible conduct. it doesn't make the statute on its face, it doesn't make it
viewpoint discriminatory. >> what if there is a real question about whether it is safe? that is incidental? >> it is incidental to her performing her job. if it were circumstance where that kind of speech were habitual or widespread, or touched on advocacy, petitioners would have a chance to challenge the statute as applied. they have not begun to make a case there is viewpoint is discriminiation happening in the buffer zone. >> it is hard to credit the statement where the implication is if an employee says, this is a safe zone, that is incidental to their function. >> it is incidental to the permissible purpose for which they are allowed in the buffer zone.
i should point out -- they actually trained their escorts not to engage in that kind of speech. they only operate in boston for a couple of hours. they don't work at all in worchester or springfield. >> that raises another question. i assume that is true because the crowd and obstruction are at one facility, it is not all 10 of them or for certain periods of time. not all day every day. why not narrow it that way? >> experience has shown you do have problems in worchester and springfield. they do center around the driveways.
85-90% of patients approach by car. the only sidewalk is a slice between the road and private driveway. that is the only opportunity that individuals would have to protest. what has happened in the past is you would have pacing across these driveways. you'd have individuals stopping and standing and refusing to move. you would have literature thrown into cars. you would have hands and heads thrust into open windows. there was at least one accident. there was conduct that was a problem. it was not a couple of lone protesters. there are events, regular protesters there every week. the crowds get larger at the
semi-annual -- >> i object to you calling these people protesters. that is not how they present themselves. they say what they want to talk quietly to the women who are going into the facilities. how does that make them protesters? >> the problem that the statute is looking to address is not with protesters per se. it was with people who had a desire to be as close to the doors and facilities is possible to communicate their message. the result of that was congestion around these doors and driveways. it wasn't a concern about the protest. it was a concern about people being able to use -- >> i would think that if you tried to do a statute that distinguish between protesters and counselors, that would be content-based more than this
statue is. >> i would agree. >> i am hung up on when you need so much space. >> we have had a long history of crowds around these doors. even violence. we have had law enforcement and others who have viewed the crowd on a regular basis and have described the activity as being so frenetic. so many people there. the bad actors and good actors. so many people congesting the same space. it effectively blocks the door. >> can i ask you this question? suppose the state legislature had hearings and they said there is a history of violence and obstruction at sites where there was a strike and replacement workers have been called in?
could the state have statute that says there is a zone around every location in the state whenever there is a strike? could they do that? >> labor actions are protected by federal law. >> could federal law do that? >> this court has repeatedly upheld restrictions on labor activity. the answer is yes. the first amendment would permit regulation. >> in every case? it would just be a flat rule? it would not matter whether was any history or an indication of violence? a zone around every place there is a strike? >> it would be an easier case to defend if there was history as we have here. as there is here. >> you don'th