‘Barbaric and evil’: Watch member of Congress quiz pro-abortion researcher about ‘favorite abortion’ procedure

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) put an abortion supporter on the spot April 28 when he pressed American University scholar Jessica Waters during a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing, asking her repeatedly to name her “favorite” type of abortion procedure.

Waters, a senior scholar whose research focuses on “reproductive rights law” and “abortion regulation,” declined each request.

Key Takeaways:

• Rep. Brandon Gill asked pro-abortion researcher Jessica Waters to name her “favorite” abortion method during a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, April 28.

• Waters repeatedly refused to answer, citing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act as the reason the committee had convened.

• The subcommittee was examining whether the Biden administration had used the FACE Act to target and prosecute pro-life activists outside abortion facilities.

The Details:

The exchange between Gill and Waters unfolded before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, where Waters appeared as a witness. Gill opened by asking her: “What’s your favorite type of abortion?”

Waters deflected: “I am an advocate for patients having access to the full realm of reproductive healthcare.”

Gill did not move on. Instead, he began methodically reading aloud the clinical descriptions of specific abortion procedures — starting with suction abortion, which he described as a process in which the cervix is dilated, and suction “29 times the power of a household vacuum cleaner tears the baby’s body apart.” He asked Waters whether she preferred that method.

“I stand by my former testimony,” Waters said.

Today I asked an abortion advocate what her favorite method of abortion is. pic.twitter.com/4Wvx4vo3i3

— Congressman Brandon Gill (@RepBrandonGill) April 28, 2026

Gill moved on to the D&E or dilation and evacuation abortion procedure in which the abortionist uses a Sopher clamp and “the baby’s body is cut into pieces and extracted.” He also described a saline-injection procedure, each time asking Waters if that procedure was her favorite.

Each time, Waters declined to answer, pointing instead to the FACE Act as the legislation nominally at issue in the hearing.

“Is it because it’s uncomfortable to talk about?” Gill asked. “It should be uncomfortable … it is barbaric and evil.”

The Bottom Line:

The strategy behind Gill’s line of questioning is deliberate.

By stripping away the language of “reproductive healthcare” and “patient access” and replacing it with clinical descriptions of what abortion procedures actually involve, Gill forced the question that abortion euphemisms are designed to avoid: if you advocate for abortion, what exactly are you advocating for?

Waters never answered. And in the court of public opinion, that silence may have said more than any answer could have.

This article originally appeared on Live Action News.