On July 15, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings discussing the implications of S. 1696,”The Women’s Health Protection Act,” which proponent of pro-life described as radical.
“[This is] the most radical pro-abortion bill ever considered by Congress,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee.
Tobias explained how the bill is a matter human rights’ violation. Implying that unborn children should have the constitutional rights to life, liberty and happiness, like any other person. Thus, aborting them is causing harm to a human being.
“Abortion is brutal to both the mother and the child,” added Diane Black, R-Tennessee, who was among opponents of the bill.
  Black, who had also worked as a nurse, explained that abortion is a dangerous medical procedure. She said that Women who have had abortions are at a 37% increased risk of pre-term birth in subsequent pregnancies, a 30% to 50% increased risk of placenta previa in subsequent pregnancies, and 18% more likely to develop breast cancer as opposed to the average of just 12%.
“It takes the life of an unborn child and in the process, imposes many serious medical risks to the mother,” she stated.
 Willy Parker, a doctor based in Birmingham, Ala. who said to travel to Mississippi to help female patients, argued that there is a greater risk for not taking action when it comes to abortion.
“Proponents of these laws can argue that they are “protecting” the health of women, but the truth would suggest otherwise. Here are the facts in Mississippi: there are high teen and unintended  pregnancy rates, high infant mortality rates, high maternal mortality rates, and too many Mississippians living in astronomical poverty,” he explained.
 Nancy Northup, president of the National Right to Life Committee, argued that the bill is a matter of women constitutional rights. Implying that the bill will guarantee freedom of choice to all women to make private, personal decisions about their health care without intrusion from politicians who presume to know better.
 “Today I stand before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the Women’s Health Protection Act and to call on our elected leaders to put an end to the games politicians have been playing with women’s health care,” she said.
Senator Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin who argued of pro-abortion said that Women’s Health Protection Act will give freedom of choice to women. “Women should not be relied on the last decision of the court to make choice for the life.”
  Sen. Richard Blumethal, who sponsored and introduced this pro-choice bill, argued in favor of the measure, saying it would end the relentless attacks on abortion clinics and providers throughout the country by requiring states to regulate them just as they would with any other clinics.
Several other political figures testified against the bill. The list included Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa.
“It’s unfortunate that the [Senate] majority is using this issue to appear compassionate and concerned about women’s rights when, in reality, the bill disregards popular and common sense laws enacted by various states aimed at protecting women and children across the country,” said Mr. Grassley.
 Along the same line, Mr. Cruz described the bill as an extreme legislation. “It is designed to force a radical view from Democrats in the Senate: that abortions should be universally available, without limits, and paid for by the taxpayers,” he said.
 The bill is an updated and expanded version of the Freedom of Choice Act that was championed by Barack Obama when he was a senator.