Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) questioned a Democratic witness during a Thursday hearing on Capitol Hill, focusing on abortion procedures while lawmakers examined enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
The hearing was held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government following a Department of Justice report released earlier this month. The report detailed how the Biden administration collaborated with pro-abortion groups and used the FACE Act to target and prosecute pro-life advocates.
Gill directed his questions to Jessica Waters, a professor and senior scholar in residence at American University Washington College of Law. Waters was identified as an “expert” in “reproductive rights law and policy.”
At the start of the exchange, Gill asked Waters about her personal views.
“But do you have a preferred method of abortion that you like?” he asked.
Waters did not answer directly.
“I’m an advocate for patients having access to the full realm of reproductive health care,” she said.
Gill repeated his question.
“But do you have a preferred method of abortion that you like?” he asked again.
He then told Waters he would outline several procedures.
“I want to get your take on how much you like these,” Gill said.
He began with one example.
“The first type is called a ‘Suction Abortion,’” he said.
Gill continued with a description of the procedure.
“This is when the cervix is dilated and a strong suction, 29 times the power of a household vacuum cleaner,” he said.
He added, “tears the baby’s body apart and sucks it through the hose into a container.”
Gill followed up with a direct question.
“Do you prefer that method?” he asked.
Waters did not respond to the question and instead referenced the subject of the hearing.
She said she stood by her testimony and pointed to the FACE Act, which “prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services or to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.”
Gill continued to press her.
“That sounds kind of gross, doesn’t it?” he said.
He added, “Sounds pretty gruesome. Do you agree?”
Gill then moved to another procedure.
“What about this one: This one is called ‘Dilation and Curettage,’” he said.
He described the process in stages.
“After dilation of the cervix, a sharp-looped knife is inserted into the uterus,” Gill said.
He added, “The baby’s body is cut into pieces and extracted, often by suction.”
He again asked Waters for a response.
“Do you prefer that method?” Gill asked.
Waters again declined to answer and attempted to redirect to the FACE Act.
Gill reiterated his point.
“You’re an abortion advocate,” he said.
“I’m asking if you prefer the Dilation and Curettage’ method.”
When Waters continued to avoid answering, Gill questioned her reluctance.
“You don’t want to talk about abortion itself, why is that?” he asked.
He added, “Is it because it’s uncomfortable to talk about?”
Gill then said, “It should be uncomfortable.”
He moved on to another procedure.
“How about this one? It’s called ‘Dilation and Evacuation,’” he said.
Gill described it step by step.
“Forceps are inserted into the uterus,” he said.
He added, “grabbing and twisting the baby’s body to dismember him or her.”
Gill continued, “If the head is too large, it must be crushed in order to remove it.”
He again asked Waters for her position.
“Do you prefer that method?” he said.
Waters did not provide a direct answer.
Gill continued the exchange.
“It’s uncomfortable to hear this, isn’t it?” he said.
He added, “It is … because it’s barbaric and evil.”
Gill then raised another example.
He referred to a method called “Saline Injection.”
“It’s when a 20 percent salt solution is injected through the mother’s abdomen into the baby’s amniotic fluid,” he said.
He added, “The baby’s skin is burned off.”
Gill continued, “The baby ingests the solution and dies of salt poisoning, dehydration, and hemorrhaging of the brain.”
He again asked the same question.
“Do you prefer that method?” Gill said.
Waters did not directly respond.
Gill concluded that portion of his questioning by addressing the topic of discussion.
“I wouldn’t want to talk about this either if I were you,” he said.
He added, “because it is barbaric and evil.”
WATCH: