News

(WASHINGTON) — After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that guaranteed a woman’s right to an abortion, states are taking action.

The court’s ruling rolled back constitutional protection for abortion rights, giving each state the power to decide.

Several states had trigger laws in place that immediately banned abortion if Roe was overturned. Others guarantee the right to an abortion under state laws or their constitutions.

Some states are now introducing new laws, emboldened by the Supreme Court’s decision.

Latest updates:

Jun 24, 2:11 pm
Indiana legislators to address abortion in special session

Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb said a special session of the General Assembly next month will address abortion in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is clear, and it is now up to the states to address this important issue. We’ll do that in short order in Indiana,” Holcomb said in a statement. “I’ve already called the General Assembly back on July 6, and I expect members to take up this matter as well.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is clear, and it is now up to the states to address this important issue. We’ll do that in short order in Indiana. I’ve already called the General Assembly back on July 6, and I expect members to take up this matter as well.

— Governor Eric Holcomb (@GovHolcomb) June 24, 2022

Jun 24, 2:10 pm
South Carolina governor vows to push for passage of ‘fetal heartbeat bill’

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, vowed to push for more abortion restrictions on the heels of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a resounding victory for the Constitution and for those who have worked for so many years to protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us,” McMaster tweeted.

He added, “By the end of the day, we will file motions so that the Fetal Heartbeat Act will go into effect in South Carolina and immediately begin working with members of the General Assembly to determine the best solution for protecting the lives of unborn South Carolinians.”

By the end of the day, we will file motions so that the Fetal Heartbeat Act will go into effect in South Carolina and immediately begin working with members of the General Assembly to determine the best solution for protecting the lives of unborn South Carolinians.

— Gov. Henry McMaster (@henrymcmaster) June 24, 2022

The law requires doctors to perform ultrasounds on pregnant women seeking an abortion to determine if cardiac activity can be detected, which typically occurs around six weeks — before many women know they’re pregnant.

The law had been blocked, pending the outcome of Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote along party lines.

Additionally, the state’s attorney general, Alan Wilson, announced he has filed a motion in federal court to lift the injunction of the law.

Jun 24, 1:11 pm
Alabama governor seeks to enforce abortion ban

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said Friday the state will work to enforce a 2019 law that makes performing an abortion at any stage a felony unless the mother’s health is in danger.

“Currently, there is a halt by a federal judge on the enforcement of that law, but now that Roe is overturned, the state will immediately ask the court to strike down any legal barriers to enforcing this law,” Ivey said in a statement.

Currently, there is a halt by a federal judge on the enforcement of that law, but now that Roe is overturned, the state will immediately ask the court to strike down any legal barriers to enforcing this law. (4/6)

— Governor Kay Ivey (@GovernorKayIvey) June 24, 2022

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall also issued a statement calling on all abortion clinics in the state to close.

“Any abortionist or abortion clinic operating in the State of Alabama in violation of Alabama law should immediately cease and desist operations,” Marshall said.

The right to an abortion is not protected under Alabama’s state constitution.

Jun 24, 1:10 pm
Virginia governor seeks to ban abortion after 15 weeks

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin will seek to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy following the Supreme Court decision to overrule Roe v. Wade, his office confirmed to ABC News.

Virginians elected a pro-life governor and he supports finding consensus on legislation,” spokesperson Macaulay Porter said.

She added, “He has tapped Senator Siobhan Dunnavant, Senator Steve Newman, Delegate Kathy Byron and Delegate Margaret Ransone to do so and prioritize protecting life when babies begin to feel pain in the womb, including a 15-week threshold.”

Youngkin released a statement Friday morning praising the court’s decision, saying it “rightfully returned power to the people and their elected representatives in the states.”

Jun 24, 12:56 pm
Missouri announces abortion ban after Supreme Court ruling

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said in a tweet Friday that Missouri has banned abortions following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.

“In response to today’s SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, I have signed a proclamation activating the ‘Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act,’ ending elective abortions in the State,” Parson wrote.

BREAKING: Missouri has become the first state in the nation to effectively end abortions.

In response to today’s SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, I have signed a proclamation activating the “Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act,” ending elective abortions in the State. pic.twitter.com/Spfi5k1grX

— Governor Mike Parson (@GovParsonMO) June 24, 2022

With the overturning of Roe, nearly half of the nation’s 50 states are prepared to ban all or nearly all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights policy organization.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As Pride Month nears its end, the House has passed the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act, which will require over 100 federal agencies to improve data collection and surveying of LGBTQ communities.

Data collection is vital to understanding the needs of a community, sponsors of the bill say.

The legislation states that complete and accurate information about LGBTQ identities is needed to “inform public policy and federal programs,” allowing legislators to direct resources where they are needed and better serve the community.

Right now, few federal agencies regularly collect complete, nuanced data on these populations, according to the bill.

“The availability of data also has a critical role in ensuring that any disparities in areas like health outcomes, housing, and employment can be addressed,” the bill states.

The act would also implement privacy requirements for data collection that would prevent the personal identification of individuals for their protection.

Today, the House is considering the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act. By ensuring the LGBTQI+ community is represented in federal studies and surveys, the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act will help us craft better policies to meet the needs of the LGBTQI+ community #BetterData #BetterPolicy pic.twitter.com/3CwpjIgB5t

— LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus (@LGBTEqCaucus) June 23, 2022

LGBTQ people are more likely to experience poor health conditions, financial and housing insecurity, and higher unemployment rates than the general population, according to research by Rutgers University, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and more.

Activists applauded the move to expand data collection, including the nation’s largest LGBTQ civil rights group, the Human Rights Campaign.

They say it’ll help formally acknowledge and attempt to address issues facing the community.

“Turning the knowledge of those disparities into action that will close the gap requires a much more systematic and consistent effort,” said David Stacy, HRC’s Government Affairs director. “We call on the U.S. Senate to take up this important legislation, pass it, and send it to President Biden for his signature.”

Now, the bill is heading to the Senate.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House voted Friday afternoon to pass a bipartisan gun safety package.

The bill, crafted in the wake of devastating mass shootings and on the one-month anniversary of the Robb Elementary School massacre in Texas that left 19 young children dead, is the first major piece of gun reform to clear Congress in decades.

The final vote was 234-193, with 14 Republicans joining all Democrats in supporting the bill. Applause could be heard in the chamber when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the vote.

The legislation now goes to President Joe Biden’s desk.

The president has praised the bill, despite having called on lawmakers to pass stronger restrictions like a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

“This bipartisan legislation will help protect Americans,” Biden said in a statement after the Senate passed the legislation on Thursday. “Kids in schools and communities will be safer because of it.”

Fifteen Republicans in the Senate, including Republican leader Mitch McConnell, voted in favor of the bill.

The measure makes enhancements to background checks for potential gun buyers under the age of 21, requiring an “investigative period” to review juvenile and mental health records.

It also closes the so-called “boyfriend loophole.” Under current law, those convicted of domestic violence are prohibited from purchasing a gun if they are married to their partners or live with their partners. But under this bill, individuals in “serious” “dating relationships” will also be unable to buy guns for at least five years if they are convicted of abuse.

Millions of dollars would also be allocated to incentive states to pass “red flag” laws to remove guns from people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others, as well as other intervention programs or mental health services.

The House previously passed numerous gun reform packages; however, the Senate never took up the legislation due to Republican opposition.

The most recent package passed in the House earlier this month went much further than the Senate package. The legislation raised the minimum age to purchase firearms and banned ghost guns and large-capacity ammunition magazines, among other gun safety protections.

“This is a compromise. Surely not everything I want, and it’s not everything Republicans won. But it’s the first opportunity we’ve had in decades to do something worthwhile to prevent gun violence,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

But other Democrats said the package didn’t go far enough.

“While I know that some are celebrating progress today, I am certainly not,” Rep. Norma Torres, D-Calif., emotionally said during Friday’s Rules Committee meeting. “This bill before us today is the bare minimum and we should be embarrassed. The bare minimum to protect children that are being murdered while learning their ABCs.”

Pelosi and other Democrats gathered on the steps of the United States Capitol before the vote to celebrate the legislation.

“I say to my colleagues: while it isn’t everything we would have liked to see in legislation, it takes us down the road, the path to more safety, saving lives,” Pelosi said. “Let us not judge the legislation for what it does not do, but respect it for what it does.”

“Our colleagues are gathered here with pictures of those who have been lost in all of this, accompanied by family members of those who have been lost,” Pelosi added. “It is our constant resolve that we will not stop until the job is done.”

The passage of the gun safety bill comes just one day after a major Supreme Court decision expanding gun rights.

The court’s conservative majority struck down a 100-year-old New York law that restricted the concealed carry of handguns in public to only those with a “proper cause.” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In thousands of rulings over its storied history, the U.S. Supreme Court has broken with stare decisis, the doctrine of respecting prior decisions, just 145 times in cases requiring interpretation of the Constitution.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that extended constitutional protection for abortion, marks one of the few times it has clawed back a right enjoyed by millions of Americans for decades.

“The court has never ever overturned a prior case extending a constitutional right,” said Cardozo Law professor Kate Shaw, an ABC News legal analyst. At the same time, other scholars say, it would be restoring the right of people to govern themselves through elected policymakers.

The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health — allowing states to ban abortion — has put renewed focus on when and how the high court decides to reverse itself, and what some scholars say is a distinct shift in approach over the last 50 years.

“In most matters, it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right,” wrote Justice Louis Brandeis in 1932, famously summarizing the court’s approach to precedent at the time.

Justice Samuel Alito made clear the current majority has a different view: “When it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution,” Alito wrote in Dobbs, “we place a high value on having the matter ‘settled right.'”

The perceived “rightness” of a settled case has taken on new salience with the current Supreme Court, where five conservative justices — three appointed in the last five years — have signaled growing openness to revisit old “wrongs.”

“There is evidence that a weaker version of stare decisis — the presumption that the Supreme Court generally should not overrule its prior decisions — is in vogue on the court,” wrote University of Akron Law School professor Michael Gentithes in a 2020 law review analysis.

Gentithes says the high-water mark for the power of stare decisis was in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, when a conservative majority of justices reaffirmed the core holding of Roe even though a plurality considered it flawed.

“Then, as now, there were a bunch of new justices on the court who seemed quite skeptical of the soundness of Roe,” said Shaw. “And many people were very surprised to see the final outcome from a three justice majority of Republican appointees.”

Since then, as the court’s membership has changed, “poor reasoning” in a prior decision has become “ever-present justification” to attempt to overturn it, Gentithes’ analysis found.

Notably, it was Justice Alito who enshrined the court’s current approach to precedent in his 2018 opinion Janus v. AFSCME.

Laying out five factors he says justices should weigh in reversing a precedent, Alito put the quality of its reasoning as the paramount consideration — a standard that several of his justice peers have publicly embraced.

“I think a lot of people lack courage. They know what is right, and they’re scared to death of doing it. And then they come up with all these excuses for not doing it,” Justice Clarence Thomas, who joined Alito’s opinion in Janus, said last month about overturning cases he believes to be fundamentally wrong.

Two years later, Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a concurring opinion in Ramos v. Louisiana, put his spin on the approach, saying the precedent must be “grievously or egregiously” wrong to warrant overturning. But even then, he noted, justices should keep an eye on the reliance interests in a prior decision and a need to “maintain stability in the law.”

Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett all voted to overturn Roe and Casey.

“When one of our constitutional decisions goes astray, the country is usually stuck with the bad decision unless we correct our own mistake,” Alito explained.

Error correction has always been a factor in the Supreme Court’s rationale for overturning precedent, especially in matters of constitutional interpretation, which cannot easily be addressed by Congress.

While lawmakers could have attempted to amend the constitution to obliterate the Supreme Court’s racist “separate but equal” doctrine legitimized in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, it was the justices’ unanimous 1954 ruling to overturn Plessy in Brown v. Board of Education that set it right.

“I think the Plessy example is very persuasive, not that Roe should be overturned but that we don’t want a stare decisis doctrine written in stone — or even setting cement,” said Sarah Isgur, a former Justice Department lawyer and ABC News legal analyst.

Justice Brandeis, a revered liberal icon of the court, acknowledged as much in his 1932 writing on stare decisis, noting that “lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning” may necessitate corrections.

But critics say contemporary emphasis on a prior decision’s reasoning — and its rightness or wrongness — may be undermining stare decisis and the credibility of the court.

“A court that changes its mind every time there is a new justice or different set of facts undermines the very concept of the rule of law and creates uncertainty for citizens, businesses and elected officials trying to go about their lives while following the laws of the land,” said Isgur.

Many legal scholars say overturning Roe also threatens precedents involving rights other than abortion not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, such as marriage.

“If the court is willing to overrule Roe v. Wade, after we just had confirmation hearings of justices come in and say it’s precedent upon precedent, it’s a ‘super precedent,’ it’s foundational,” said Rachel Barkow, vice-dean of New York University Law School, “what the public sees is that no precedent is safe, that stare decisis is meaningless to them and that anything is up for grabs.”

Alito attempts to head off the criticism in his decision, writing “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

“Everybody thinks that stare decisis is the idea that precedent counts for something, but it’s not absolute,” said University of Notre Dame law professor Sherif Girgis, a former clerk to Justice Alito. “It gets respect because it’s a precedent, but there’s always the possibility that it can be overturned if a bunch of other criteria are satisfied.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Friday harshly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision upending abortion rights and called on Congress to enshrine access in federal law.

“It’s a sad day for the court and the country,” Biden said as he delivered remarks from the Cross Hall of the White House.

“Today the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized,” he said. ‘They didn’t limit it, they simply took it away. That’s never been done to a right so important to so many Americans but they did it.”

The court’s conservative majority voted Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade as it upheld a Mississippi law that bans nearly all abortions past 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Justice Samuel Alito, who also authored the bombshell draft opinion leaked to the public earlier this year indicating this outcome, wrote in the opinion that Roe was “egregiously wrong from the start.”

“Abortion presents a profound moral question,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices slammed the majority’s opinion, writing that the decision essentially “says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of.”

Biden said he believed Roe was correctly decided, calling Friday’s ruling a “tragic error” by the high court.

Biden called on Congress to take action to enshrine abortion rights at the federal level.

“No executive action from the president can do that,” Biden said.

“This fall, Roe is on the ballot,” he added.

“This decision must not be the final word,” he said. “With your vote, you can act. You can have the final word.”

He called out President Donald Trump’s influence by name.

“It was three justices, named by one president, Donald Trump, who are the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country,” he said.

“Make no mistake: this decision is a culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law,” he said. “It is a realization of an extreme ideology, and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view.”

Abortion rights activists previously told ABC News they believed Biden could employ the Food and Drug Administration and Medicaid to fill gaps in care.

Biden took such action on Friday, stating he was instructing the Department of Health and Human Services — which oversees the FDA — to take steps to protect access to medication abortion in the wake of Roe being overturned.

Biden also expressed concern Friday that the ruling would impact other Supreme Court decisions relating to the notion of privacy — such as contraception and same-sex marriage rights.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion on Friday, stated such unenumerated rights should be reconsidered.

Thomas specifically called for the reconsideration of Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right of married couples to use contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, which protects the right to same-sex romantic relationships; and Obergefell v. Hodges, which establishes the right to same-sex marriage.

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” he wrote.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was met with immediate protest from individuals on both sides of the abortion debate. Biden called on Americans to keep all protests peaceful.

ABC News’ Ben Gittleson contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — When activists learned the Supreme Court was considering overturning abortion rights, they feared other rights, such as same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships and contraceptives, might be next.

On Friday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade validated those concerns by stating that other precedents from the high court should be reconsidered.

Thomas called for the reconsideration of Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right of married couples to use contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, which protects the right to same-sex romantic relationships; and Obergefell v. Hodges, which establishes the right to same-sex marriage.

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents,” he wrote.

“After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated,” Thomas wrote.

Activist groups across the country are sounding the alarm about a potential fight for previously protected LGBTQ and reproductive rights.

“The anti-abortion playbook and the anti-LGBTQ playbook are one and the same,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and CEO of LGBTQ advocacy organization GLAAD, in a statement. “Our bodies, healthcare and our future belong to us, not to a meddling politician or extremist Supreme Court justices, and we will fight back.”

The lack of reference to “abortion” in the Constitution and the fact that “no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” was used in the opinion that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Still, Justice Samuel Alito stated in the opinion that other unenumerated rights that aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are not immediately in doubt.

“To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” the document states. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Thomas’ note to “correct the error” established in other precedents, however, has put LGBTQ groups like GLAAD, the National LGBTQ Task Force and reproductive rights organizations like Planned Parenthood, on edge.

“We must push back now – on all state and federal lawmakers and courts – to fight for abortion access and reproductive choice, the right for transgender people to access life-saving healthcare, the right to bodily autonomy, and the right to sexual freedom,” said Kierra Johnson, the executive director of the National LGBTQ Task Force, in a statement.

She continued, “These are our most basic liberties — to live a life of dignity, private from government interference. The Court has no place interfering with our constitutional right to make decisions about our own bodies.”

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade and the fundamental right to abortion that has been the law for almost 50 years.

The court ruled 6-3, in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, who called Roe “egregiously wrong from the start.”

The court upheld a Mississippi law that bans all abortion past 15 weeks, with very few medical exceptions.

The court also overturned Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, two landmark decisions legalizing abortion nationwide.

Alito also wrote the bombshell draft opinion leaked to the public earlier this year. The three liberal justices dissented.

Alito wrote that the Constitution “does not confer a right to abortion,” stating it is ultimately up to the states to regulate abortion access.

“Abortion presents a profound moral question,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

In their dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan lamented that millions of American women will lose a right because of the court’s decision.

“It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of,” their dissent reads. “A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs. An abortion restriction, the majority holds, is permissible whenever rational, the lowest level of scrutiny known to the law.”

The three justices also pushed back on the majority’s reasoning that each state can address abortion access as it pleases.

“That is cold comfort, of course, for the poor woman who cannot get the money to fly to a distant State for a procedure,” they wrote. “Above all others, women lacking financial resources will suffer from today’s decision.”

Since Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, the court has forbidden states from banning abortions prior to fetal viability outside the womb, roughly 24 weeks, according to medical experts.

Mississippi had argued that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that each state should be allowed to set its own policy.

Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s only remaining abortion clinic, argued that the high court’s protection of a woman’s right to choose abortion is clear, well-established precedent and should be respected.

After oral arguments in December, a majority of justices voted initially to side with Mississippi, according to a leaked first draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito published by Politico in early May and confirmed to be authentic by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Majorities of Americans have long supported upholding Roe v. Wade and oppose state bans on all abortions, according to ABC News/Washington Post polling.

But Americans appear more divided on the type of ban at issue in Mississippi. A Marquette University Law School poll late last year found 37% favored upholding a 15-week ban, with 32% opposed.

Mississippi’s sole clinic only performs abortions up to 16 weeks.

As the Supreme Court case was pending, several Republican-led states enacted unique laws that effectively circumvent constitutional protections for abortion.

Texas’ SB8 — a near-total ban on abortions — took force in September, deputizing everyday citizens to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an illegal abortion. Oklahoma recently implemented a similar citizen-enforced measure that bans all abortions, with only exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that it could not intervene to block the state laws.

Twenty-six states are considered certain or likely to ban abortions following a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights. Fourteen states plus Washington, D.C., have laws explicitly protecting access to abortion care.

The ruling is the Court’s most significant on abortion rights in years and the first for the current 6-justice conservative majority with Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Dr. Deborah Birx, a former White House COVID response coordinator under then-President Donald Trump, told Congress on Thursday that Trump’s focus on the 2020 election got in the way of a strong COVID response in the winter of 2021.

Birx, who has written a book on her time working with the White House in the early days of the pandemic, spoke to the House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis largely about what she said were the errors the Trump administration made and times she disagreed with its approach.

She told the committee that was told to delete recommendations of masks and social distancing in reports that went out to states’ governors and that those reports — once put out weekly — would only be provided if the states asked.

Birx said she thought the best approach would be complete transparency and to arm the states with all the data available

The former COVID coordinator and longtime public health official also said she put together a plan in September and October for how to go into the surge that she “knew was coming to the United States throughout that fall and winter of 2020 into 2021.”
MORE: ABC News Exclusive: Dr. Birx speaks to Trump disinfectant moment, says colleagues had resignation pact

She said she was given reason to believe that the plan would be used by the White House, but instead it never went anywhere.

“That strategy was never fully executed in all of its robust and comprehensive approach because the teams were never brought back together,” Birx testified.

“I believe it is because they were distracted by the post-election issues,” she said.

That fall and winter was the deadliest time of the pandemic in the US. More people died than at any other point in the pandemic to date.

Birx also said that she believes if Trump had followed her recommendations and data, lives would’ve been saved.

The misinformation circulating in the White House, Birx said, made it hard to act on plans.

“When you no longer agree on what is actually happening in the country and what needs to be done, and there’s not consensus on that, then you lose the ability to execute in the maximum efficient and effective way,” Birx said.

Going forward, Birx said the country still is not in a good place.

She argued that the Biden administration needs to be watching for new variants that could cause surges and launch quickly on proactively testing vulnerable people and prescribing Paxlovid, which can be lifesaving if given in the first five days of illness.

She also said the country shouldn’t overlook the toll that hospitalizations have taken on people, even as the country surpasses the tragic milestone of one million deaths.

“Hospitalizations in people over 70 is not benign. It’s not benign,” she said.

“I know everybody focuses on the deaths but I want to make it clear, many more Americans have suffered really significantly from being hospitalized and another whole group still has long COVID,” Birx said.

“And so you know, this isn’t trivial — this virus is not trivial, and should not just be immediately discarded as we’re doing fine. We are not doing fine yet.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.