, the Charles E. Rice Professor of Law and director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame, offered expert testimony on Wednesday (June 12) before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 鈥淐rossing the Line: Abortion Bans and Interstate Travel for Care After Dobbs.鈥
One of the world鈥檚 leading experts on public bioethics 鈥 the governance of science, medicine and biotechnology in the name of ethical goods 鈥 Snead also testified March 20 before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the current legal landscape following the landmark Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women鈥檚 Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.
In , Snead again noted that the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in Dobbs restored the authority of the people to address the issue of abortion through their elected representatives, thus bringing the United States into 鈥渁lignment with nations around the world, who have always addressed the issue through the political process.鈥 He noted the majority of countries around the world 鈥渞estrict elective abortion between 10 to 14 weeks of pregnancy.鈥
Snead offered 鈥渇our suggestions for good governance in this difficult area.鈥
First, he stressed that to govern wisely, justly and humanely, the issue of abortion must be discussed in its full complexity 鈥 that it is not simply a variation of the health care debate (only 7 percent of OB/GYNs in private practice provide abortions), nor is it reducible simply to the values of equality or bodily autonomy of women facing serious burdens on their health and future.
Snead testified, 鈥淭he issue challenges us to consider how these goods stand in relation to the life of the unborn child 鈥 a whole, living, distinct member of the human species who, if all goes well, will move herself along the trajectory of development from embryo to fetus to newborn, provided she has the necessary support and sustenance in her mother鈥檚 womb 鈥 the first place of belonging for every human being. She is not a trespassing stranger; she is the biological child of this particular mother and father.鈥
Snead argued that public debate is impoverished when those who support abortion rights fail to acknowledge this reality, but our discourse also suffers when pro-life officials fail to address the sometimes crushing burdens of unwanted pregnancy and parenthood.
Second, Snead urged lawmakers to be clear about their positions on the limits on elective abortion.
鈥淭here are 10,000 late-term abortions in America every year 鈥 more than six times the number of annual gun homicides for children and teens,鈥 he stated. 鈥淎t least 148 U.S. clinics provide them. Social science evidence and the statements of late-term abortion practitioners such as Warren Hern suggest that these are frequently not limited to cases involving health risks to mothers or a diagnosis of fetal abnormality.鈥
Third, Snead underscored the need to fairly and accurately characterize the legal landscape. He noted that every state in America allows abortion to save a mother鈥檚 life and the vast majority allow it for lesser health risks, providing factual context to recent highly publicized cases from Texas.
鈥淭exas鈥 law allows abortions where in a physician鈥檚 鈥榬easonable medical judgment,鈥 a mother has a life-threatening condition that could cause substantial bodily impairment,鈥 he testified. 鈥淭exas just passed a bipartisan law clarifying that previable premature rupture of membranes falls under the health exception and reaffirming that treatment of ectopic pregnancy is not an 鈥榓bortion鈥 under the law. There are no restrictions on miscarriage management. The Texas Supreme Court just affirmed that serious health risks need not be imminent to justify abortion and that any clinician who says so 鈥榠s simply wrong in that legal assessment.鈥欌
Snead noted that Texas does not authorize abortions solely because of an unborn baby鈥檚 disability or poor prognosis. The state also extended postpartum Medicaid coverage from six months to one year; allocated $165 million to support mothers, babies and families; and passed a recent maternal mental health law.
In his fourth recommendation, Snead invited committee members to reimagine the human context in which the question of abortion arises 鈥 a theme central to the de Nicola Center鈥檚 .
鈥淚nstead of a zero-sum conflict among strangers over the permissible use of lethal force, think of it as a crisis facing a mother and her child,鈥 Snead said. 鈥淭hen ask how we can work together across our differences to come to their aid not just during pregnancy, but throughout life鈥檚 journey.鈥
Snead鈥檚 research explores issues relating to abortion, neuroethics, human embryo research, assisted reproduction and end-of-life decision-making.
He is the author of 鈥淲hat It Means to be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics,鈥 which was named by the Wall Street Journal as one of the 鈥.鈥 In 2022, it was listed in the New York Times as one of 鈥.鈥 Prior to joining the law faculty at Notre Dame, Snead served as general counsel to the President鈥檚 Council on Bioethics.