something that myth smith said about the energy commerce committee. a report of the minority of the committee by no means reflective of the work of the majority of the energy and commerce committee. >> thank you for clarifying that. >> may i please introduce into the record the planned parenthood statement as well as the leadership conference on civil and human rights? >> without objection. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you. you had a great deal of experience. could you please give the committee your definition of what constitutes infanticide

>> that is when the baby is killed, and infant. >> assuming that the baby is born following a bust abortion and is alive you think that either killing the baby by commission or omission is infanticide? >> i think i would have to do more research on state law. >> we have a federal born alive act. >> i would say it was a violation not to take action to preserve the life of a viable child. >> i am talking about born alive.

that does fall under this definition. what you are saying, if there were not sufficiently concerned nurses that found them after the abortionist had not killed them during the delivery then they're would have been a crime infanticide simply by abandoning and a live baby and not taking care of it. >> that would be a violation of the current protection act. >> that is what the law is now. >> it is a violation. >> i think you are right. you and i agree. >> that is federal law. yes.

>> how come they do not follow federal law when they make a mistake in the baby is killed prior to being born? >> to my knowledge they do. >> we have to examples where the law was not followed. >> it was not in place. >> i know. it started out by asking you to define infanticide. >> most laws require, if a fetus is born alive it becomes a person. an act taken to cause demise with the murder. >> if they did not do anything to save the child's life would be manslaughter? >> i don't know.

i am not familiar. and i do not think that they were common. we would have heard more about it if they were. and certainly now -- >> we would be. witnesses who were born alive. they were on the books in most states without the born alive protection, and they are here. my question is, you are a lawyer and have been advising planned parenthood. you represented there interest before the supreme court of the united states. >> i was counsel for different plaintiffs. >> i'm sure planned parenthood did not disagree with anything you said. >> probably not.

>> good.good. we will assume that for the state -- for the sake of argument. whether or not they broke the law, when congress sets budgeting priority we have to decide what is important and what is not in which has a higher priority and should be funded and which has a lower priority and should not be funded. >> right. >> now, please tell us why planned parenthood needs to get over half a billion in federal funding every year when there are other pressing needs such as feeding hungry children? >> let's be clear that it is not getting federal funding for abortions. >> well, you and i know. the question is whether congress should appropriate

another half-billion dollars but we could be spending that money on feeding hundred children. this is a question of priorities. >> my priority, funding planned parenthood is equal to feeding children. what it does is preserve women's lives the mothers of those children. >> how can they be the mothers of the children when children are imported through planned parenthood? >> many women go. even those obtaining abortions, 60 percent already have at least one if not more child. >> i guess your priorities are different than mine.

>> my priorities are funding planned parenthood excellent high-quality comprehensive healthcare they coast of women who otherwise would become pregnant unintentionally and within need an abortion. as someone who opposes abortion you would support the funding of contraception , contraceptive services to reduce unintended pregnancies and the number of abortions. it makes no sense not to fund the services if you want to reduce the number of abortions. >> that is not the case. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. >> first of all, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter

from 56 national faith-based and religious groups supporting planned parenthood. >> without objection. >> before i start, i want to say, i want to clarify: the borderline infant protection act was brought i surprised people by saying that i saw no point to opposing it.it. it was a deliberate trap designed to entice pro- abortion groups. it is already law of the land. anyone who kills a child outside the home, who stands idly by is guilty of murder or manslaughter with without the borderline infant protection act which was introduced to slander the

abortion groups to say pro- abortion groups support infanticide. >> i would like to express my dismay in the title to this hearing. the title alone is enough to call this hearing a farce. it is wrong. perhaps the majority conclusion explains why not a single representative is here and by the chairman has chosen to ignore the request from ranking members to suspend these one-sided investigations which made the video. if we wanted to hear about the practices, we can have hours of testimony. the majority is not interested in.

it appears the chairman called this hearing to examine how it participates in fetal tissue donation. in the years since the youth issue has been used to make groundbreaking discoveries. fetal tissue and cells are a necessary part of the research toolkit and amoral part. the laws are simple and clear. the affiliates you participate which represent about 1 percent of all health centers comply with these laws just as they do with thousands of others every single day. that should be the conclusion of the hearing. but instead this committee has chosen to on smears.

the goal is clear, to smear pan to five planned parenthood. sadly, this is not the 1st time congress has been drawn into this charade. we have seen it strive to trap planned parenthood. in no time at all the claims are debunked. this is being repeated today. i would like to walk you through the history. claiming to show planned parenthood was conducting? >> no. >> you are under oath. >> i know. >> you are not aware. >> no. >> that you are remarkably ignorant. were you aware in 2011

antiabortion groups released videos showing they condone sex trafficking? >> no. >> you are still under oath. they tried to cut off funding. are you aware of that? >> i don't remember it connected in that way. >> you remember the two things occur? [inaudible conversations] >> i am trying to answer your question. >> do you remember not? >> i don't know what the question is. >> they tried to cut off funding for planned parenthood. >> i have answer that question. >> your answer was the two things, congress tried to cut off funding, you don't remember them being connected. >> no. >> thank you. once again, not true.

the list goes on. women were pressured into abortions, not true. not true. false claims about statutory rape, not true. they is released claiming planned parenthood was involved in illegal tissue sales. he came before congress and recanted his testimony and there were no charges. are you aware of that hearing? >> i don't recall it. >> the people who made these videos are liars in a long line of liars. if you have a shred of real evidence that planned parenthood was breaking the law you would've taken it to a state of federal prosecutor right away. if you have confidence you

have brought them here to testify, but he did not and do not. this is all a farce designed to shame women, to scare abortion providers, and eliminate options for women to access health services. this is all knowing we based on lies. i hope the majority comes to their senses. i yield back my time. >> the chair recognizes mr. forbes from virginia. >> i apologize for anyone calling any witness remarkably ignorant and for that statement even though it was not made by us. i can understand the voices on the other side of this committee who would say please don't look at the video. this is not about the video.

it is kind of like the wizard of oz. what i cannot understand is the same voices cannot say that there is no act that is too far, no act that is too brutal, no act unacceptable, even for planned parenthood. if you are correct on the number of abortions are talking about $147 million, big dollars. what startles me is when i here mr. smith say, and i want to read this again, justice kennedy's statements , he described at length the testimony provided by abortionists alternate methods for dismemberment procedures.

this is what he said in court. the fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and survive for a time muslims of being torn off. it was agreed when you pull out a piece of the fetus and remove that, just prior to the removal the fetus is alive. it has been observed, fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with extensive parts removed and new dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows the physician remove the on. at the conclusion of an abortion no intact fetus remains in the abortionist

is left with a tray full of pieces. the fetus dies just as a human adult or child would end up leads to death as it is torn limb from limb. and to say you support a woman's right to choose one thing. to say you might want to give health care to people is another. for anybody to say have procedure what you just described is humane that justifies my imagination. and then when i look, i know you state that you are with

-- associate research year law school, but i wonder, does jail have at least study for the rights of individuals to be born without cerebral palsy? a lot of questions that are apparently unanswered. any such studies that there put forth the right for these children to not be born with one arm, they do not look at this act and can find no.to far, too brutal, inhumane, and dare suggest we are extreme.

with that, i thank you for this hearing and are witnesses. >> thank you. ms. jackson lee five minutes >> let me thank the chairman for yielding and allowing those with a great deal of emotion to be able to project and present their views. i lived through this judiciary committee for a period of years, been through eons of these hearings on a medical procedure that saved the lives of women that were called partial-birth abortion. to the witnesses i have the greatest respect to your view point grateful for you

being here. let me say, as an undergraduate avail and being familiar with yale law school i no that it is one of the premier teachers of the constitution and paul recognizes the rights of all and would venture to say that there are individuals with different thoughts from you and therefore to my colleague, yet they produce individuals that have a great concern for the constitution of this nation. let me begin my questioning, would you join in a request to the director of the national institutes of health to suggest convening an expert panel to relook at

expert panel on fetal tissue research. >> i have not consider that question. >> i am giving it to you now >> i am not prepared to testify under oath. do you think it is a good idea? >> you know, i served on the panel that i thought fairly explored the issue. >> you would not be interested in having a review? i thank you for your answer. let me say that the planned parenthood complying with the fetal research commission under president reagan, you may have been one of those that did not agree, the consensus came out in the panel found it was unacceptable public

policy to support transplant research with fetal tissue and develop a guideline that said the research is intended to receive significant medical goals. out of this line journey the impact has been overwhelming the use of fetal tissue is held vaccinations, normal human development has this come to your attention? the medical science is generated this kind of productivity. >> and in actuality the proponent of these videos was trying to highlight the

ugliness of what is misdirected, the harvesting of organs. let me ask you this question , are you aware of how mr. dayton was able to engage in the false and misdirected, distorted, and maybe criminal videos? >> i have been advised by the committee staff that this hearing is not on that subject. let me say to you what he actually did. he stole the identity of the president of a feminist club when he was asked to

participate do they not engage in women's health. >> supported by the federal government including contraceptive services, cancer screening it is a

beloved institution, not just by me the five most americans because it is one of the few acts accessible providers of excellent, high quality care outside of the abortion area andin addition to the limited number of abortions that they do. >> regular order please. state-by-state data 451,000 persons. this is cervical and breast cancer screening two young women, women who otherwise would not be able to afford it.

the young women from united for reproductive gender equity who indicated young people are less likely to have insurance and submit this into the record. the legality of what we do. now been presented by members of congress please don't stop women from getting good healthcare. i'm thankful for the chairman's generosity, and i

yield back my time. >> originally from texas i would like to take a moment to create a perspective for just a moment for this hearing because the hearing was chairman henry heintz many years ago he can california, no surprise he

was well known for together for another reason. what he said was that a nation that does not provide respect is not a nation i hear anyone else to be proud of.

issues which a civilized society had to promote. ..

>> >> i would like to leave it at that because the important thing to consider today with a half billion dollars every year under any president including president bush planned parenthood receives a large block of money including clinics in my district receive similar money for similar our reach to help

women and families. these seven funds congress has decided with your tax payer dollars we will appropriate and deliver for this purpose. i know your history in the pro-life movement i will ask just one question. assuming that half million dollars in other movies are going to be spent, should we make sure they are spent to the best stu word of that money for the of support of women's health and shouldn't we take an interest in whether or not that organization and employee are respectful and supportive of women's health and quality of life for the children to be born? thank you. >> i do think that is a proper role of congress there are hundreds or thousands of providers out there who common that if it

was not given to planned parenthood could receive those funds for the beneficial services that are not tainted with the association of a portion or their reckless practices in terms of procurement of fetal tissue and i think everybody would be a lot more comfortable with that. resources would be diverted to support those activities. and if that is as you should was terminated. >> thank you. >> i recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> can you tell us what you think was incorrect doom the portrayal of the videos of planned parenthood's activity and the use of fetal tissue? and the price thereof.

>> it is hard for me to do tell from the of videos what is correct or incorrect protests i am not familiar with their actual practices and i am not a lawyer for planned parenthood. what i believe happened according to forensics experts and the reports is the of video things are edited out of context and made to look like they were negotiating or haggling about the price which as a favor selling body parts that don't think they were. >> does the law allow them to be reimbursed for the cost? >> absolutely.

the discussion of money was about reimbursement costs and even in the edited version the official does say we are not in this for the profitable have to check and see the reasonable cost. i a newsstand there are other statements edited out. >> the comments made on some of the videos, and he said they raised considerable concerns that infants are born alive and are killed to harvest tissue would assure response? >> i did not see or hear anything of a violation with the board allies statue. i don't see any violation at all.

>> and raising concerns of fetal tissue research fabius said of for women to of taken an abortion and vice should we be conflicted and not do so. can read you make a comment on such a convoluted statement? >> i know a number of women who have decided to go through the process and fetal tissue donation doesn't seem to be that would enter into the decision making itself. i can imagine that is happening. i also understand consent is separate from the discussion about whether a given the fact they have decided to have an abortion if they with and to contribute to the enormous life-saving benefits that can come from fetal tissue cover those decisions are made separately and the 1988

report recommends that and i think that is appropriate. >> i would like to hear again about the research being done with the use of fetal tissue to save people's lives. >> yes. there was a recent indication from the nih about this in the importance of fetal tissue research of many new treatment areas including diabetes and diseases that we know little about. and there are some promising new treatments in those areas. >> as an individual who had polio. >> yes. the early polio vaccine came from early fetal research. >> i can appreciate of fetal

tissue can do. alzheimer's is an issue that is very important to many because so many will suffer from its antipastos so much with our budget. >> i do think it is important we are concerned about consent and that it is proper the taint and as the committee represented are recommended that the decision to donate be made at a time after one has already decided to have an abortion is an appropriate safeguards against incentivizing abortion some hopper car find it difficult to think this would change a woman's mind. women make the decision for all types of reasons and this does not seem to be one of them but only decide after they made the actual decision. >> i yield back.

>> i will recognize missile for questions. there is a lot of focus here by certain committee members related just to the fetal tissue portion and the of legality or for sale but if is pretty clear if you looked at the videos you do see these little body parts are represented a once living human child when they came in to planned parenthood cover they were living children and they died a brutal death while they were there. with all the distortion to do bait-and-switch, don't forget they were once little babies killed at the hands

of planned parenthood per coated the first video released the senior director of medical services at planned parenthood described intent to play a role in said quebec the federal abortion ban is a lot and laws are up to interpretation. so some people interpret it as intent so i say i do not intend to do this then it doesn't matter because i did not intended to do this so i comply with the of lot. do you believe the doctors reliance on intent represents a bout with legal approach? and second, what would change if we had the protection act on the books at the moment?

>> i think she was referring to partial birth abortion and that has spent the dodge by the pro-abortion side that it is only violated if you ted that the of very beginning to have a of birth partially delivered to kill the child than complete the delivery but that is the process you intended at the beginning. however it does not work like that. the intent applies to each action. for instance the intent to kill the child not whether the complete process was intended to the first instance. second to, i the abortion at

the house of representatives search of the there is a potential that some of the children who are bored in tact and potentially life are produced during that period of time in which passed that act would prevent that sort of activity as a result it could have impact to obtain fetal tissue. >> infanticide is when a baby or infant is killed. the act of 2002 clarifies their board alive or attempted abortions are afforded all legal protections enjoyed by other persons in the united states. would you support amendments to the federal board of five

act to protect them in today's foldable circumstances by providing the requirement that providers are staff immediately called 914 emergency transfer to a hospital of the infant born alive that the clinic and also provide criminal penalties for those age not provide medically appropriate reasonable care to a board alive infant. >> if you talk about a viable fetus. >> i am talking about foreign -- born alive. >> pre-viable. >> born alive. i am talking about a child is born and is alive is the hard to industry and? >> no but is it a viable fetus?

if it is not viable. >> sova liability transcends all live? back with the supreme court though wind that we draw is viability. >> whatever the legal term is if that child can do ballet if they have not achieved that viability that transcends the whole question? i will ask again for a child born alive, a board of life. born alive that means reading and moving up border live child, do you think we should have amendments to the job protection act to require that died when one be called to provide a transfer to a hospital if an infant is born alive to provide criminal penalties for those positions are

professionals to do not provide reasonable care to a born alive infant? >> i think our law already protects born alive if. >> five will be more specific if a child is born of five months should it be afforded protection? >> yes. but before erg a move down the birth canal there not? >> nephew change your mind that is fine but that is not what you said. >> if it did is born alive and it is viable they deserve protection and yes they are protected.

>> but if they're not viable ? >> then they will not survive so if you have a federal lot to do called 911 or not will protect them. >> how to go for it is by it -- viable without medical professionals? >> i am not a doctor. >> but if a child is born alive subject to whatever the doctor says this child is viable and this is not cerebroside to let this one with for transfer for medical care but not this one? that is the schizophrenia of all of this. >> you should be asking a doctor these questions. >> my question to you is if they were born alive that five months should they be protected and you're having difficulty answering that question. >> i am not sure how many weeks and it depends if the fetus is viable.

>> whether they are alive or not is the issue if this is they are viable. i understand. >> sometimes they are never viable they may not have abrade they may not live. would you provide aid and comfort, the yes. >> appropriate and reasonable care is what we should do. >> yes. >> i will yield for five minutes. >> this hearing has the hallmark of the third world fourth rate nation show trial to highlight what my friends on the other side were to make the case to defund planned parenthood.

the reason that they give it is an abortion provider and it has horrific things that it does to effectuate a portion so therefore we should defund planned parenthood. that is what this hearing is all about. i called it a show trial because the accuser is not present. and the center of medical progress. neither is the accused. so what we have data crucial moment coming up on september 30 of which is the end of the fiscal year year, we're not talking about funding government

operations past september september 30th, abortion and the funding planned parenthood instead. we only have seven legislative days left in this month to put together a budget so the country can continue to operate past september 30th and indeed we are headed toward a government shutdown with the issue that is addressed here today and it is a show trial people scoring political points but i will note on this committee only one female on the other side of the aisle that is bathetic. the voices that are heard our male voices from the other side of the aisle who want to continue the attack on women's reproductive health. that is what this is all about.

it is nothing new and a continuation of a mission that the of their side has been on since it was empowered and it is a shame it is engaging in show trials. outside forensic investigators have determined the release center for medical progress videos have been heavily edited and transcripts released from the videos include words and phrases is omitted from the released videos. were you involved in the production of these videos? >> i've revised by committee staff that is not the subject of this. >> i am asking the question were you involved in the production of the videos.

yes or no? >> chairman he is not obligated. >> you were not present at the time they were shot? >> you're not obligated. >> no. >> have you viewed them in their entirety? >> no. >> see you are telling us that you are here to do testify about a series of videos the you cannot confirm whether or not they're accurate or not? >> yes or no. >> no. i have not answering yes or no. >> you know, what to answer the question. >> i have questions for other witnesses will not

argue. you are testifying to videos you don't know if they are accurate. >> i have seen the video. >> but not of an edited. >> correct. >> you want this committee to accept your opinion about edited videos, this is a show trial. >> it is not based upon the videos spee mckewon not testifying on the unedited video is but based on edited videos. >> has intimacy and all the unedited video is himself? >> no i have not. [laughter] i have not even see in the edited videos. but it is a to except his

testimony with any credibility and i would venture to conclude your testimony is worthless. but i will ask you are a strong proponent of the death penalty? >> i am in certain circumstances. >> how about you? >> in certain circumstances. >>. >> no. i do not. >> you get a for consistency. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from iowa.

>> i think the witnesses coming forward today to deliver your testimony. i know sometimes removing these is a heavy burden i am impressed every have witnesses that can deliver that message but listening to the gentleman from georgia and some of this does not fit up with my world view you may not be surprised but ms. smith he did not ask your position of the death penalty. >> cry of against it. >> with your earlier testimony that dismemberment of babies is not necessary and inhumane way for them to die? >> my definition of baby is a baby that is born if you talk about a fetus. >> but you with knowledge that testimony?

you would not assert it is a humane to dismember this of unborn baby? >> i would not say it that way it is not inhumane on a pre-viable fetus to make that is the unborn baby? excuse me. i will stop this stage because she went through this with the chairman and i think we have resolved you have your language to reduce stick to it and if anybody uses any other term. >> i don't know what you mean. >> so after many years of practice do you recall a few years ago that red china would bring criminals up on capital charges through due process convict them of a

capital crime sentence them to execution and on the way to execution and harvest their organs with medical practices? day recall? >> no. i believe you. >> it does happen. i recall america was appalled by the idea that a heartless barbaric civilization like the chinese would sentence someone to death under their version to roll them through of the operating room to harvest their organs their heart or a river or pancreas and to that was the harvest of the execution. we were appalled that the morality does that appall you? >>. >> i thought in might. and also be.

but the chinese what they think of the united states of america to be borrowing half a billion dollars from the chinese to send that money to planned parenthood that is through the system and set up use however they decide using to find an organization that dismembers babies to harvest organs and selling them on the market and river the negotiating for the price along with the methodologies used to harvest more organs. what you think the chinese think of us if we are critical of them to harvest organs form someone going through due process? train wreck i have no idea what the chinese big but the supreme court got a right with a recognized the state has an interest in the development and potential life of the fetus. >> i agree with that.

have you heard that practiced in china? have you philosophically compared the two methodologies what they may think of us? >> of course, the chinese are using the same calculus that the abortion advocates are using tear justified the abuses that have ted documented regarding collection of fetal tissue. such as professor smith, and the person is not viable see you can kill it at will. up prisoner convicted of capital punishment on their way to be executed is clearly not viable and that means the ability for a long term survival. so in their calculus the way they treat human beings or

don't respect them, it is perfectly appropriate to do with the chinese are doing. >> to tie this together, the united states virtually bar weighing half a billion dollars from china and funneling that to planned parenthood that is used to commit abortions to dismembered babies than selling organs on the open market by the evidence seen before our very eyes brighten native investigation to understand what is going on. those truths are self-evident when i saw the video so we are informing the public that the justice department needs to investigate and act and if they see what i see that i believe that brings about prosecution and conviction and i call upon the justice department to do your job, you have testified before this committee or independent branch of a government that is not

directed by the president. vis is on the floor of the illinois state senate a woman who wants an abortion is a right-to-life saying there is nobody in the united states of america should be compelled to pay taxes that will pay the interest of the debt to china so something like this can happen. i yield back. >> i am outraged by the sensational bashan -- nature of the hearing that does not look fair or impartial i am outraged against the accusations that serves millions of women in our country in and one out of five women visit at some point in their lives. sometimes it is the only place to turn to for the basic care when our economy fell into tough times low income women would turn to plant when dash plan period for services they fill a

vital gap that community health centers cannot fill by themselves. the local affiliate in my district was the target of these videos the center for medical progress tried to discredit them with a heavily edited videos. these five short videos that have been released have at least 47 splices where content is edited by the conversation although it appears to be seamless. including staff members repeatedly say there is no profit from tissue donation and it should not be that programs must follow the law and substantial changes to medical procedures would not occur and we know from the longer version that the doctor said affiliate's do not profit from fetal tissue

donation. they're not looking to make money but to serve their patients and just make it not to impact of bottom line. and those to be included in the edited version that was initially released to the national media. but yet my affiliate's served over 27,000 women must share. thousands of well woman exams and breast exams to determine sexually transmitted diseases and cancer screenings. by doing that they have saved lives. though leading questions in these videos that the to a discussion about illegal fetal tissue donation reprogram is that affiliate's don't

participate in for the most part. and calling off for the women's latest attacks for health care. leo wanted to see the whole video not selectively edited. at is why i with the levin colleagues sent a letter today to the chairman to say the full footage must be made available to the public only then would there be of a full investigation and without that it is impossible to be a transparent congressional investigation. professor smith, i do videos like these have any value? should we rely on these videos with our

investigation? day believe the public would benefit from full footage released? >> absolutely. the edited versions would not have evidentiary value precisely because of what you stated to be taken out of context is a technique used quite often and in these videos and it is unreliable. >> professor you talked about the research panel that determined fetal tissue donation of those that supported field research can you talk about the safeguards lawmakers put in place to insure no wrongdoing or that these are

working? >> yes. as far as i can tell they appear to be working. field to she was not allowed to be sold. and they're told about the abortion separately so the incentive in these situations is not pushing abortion in any way or to manipulate or:worse their choice and those are factors i hope would be in place. to the extent the committee continues to have concerns about whether this is implemented properly be a poor response is another commission to investigate the issues. >> mr. chair of a bite to enter into the record to letters. first is from organizations to support planned

parenthood america and also the international institute of health for fetal tissue during nation and research. >> without objection. >> i would like to know if the majority is in possession of the unedited videos? >> was going to address that. the unedited full footage is online and all you have to do, is that correct? >> they have stated they released them weeks ago. the point is i would only hope that my friends would actually look at that. >> i believe they are edited versions to make this short buteos are heavily edited bin what they called a full footage videos that they have also been edited it is in the forensic analysis report submitted to the

committee so nobody has seen the actual full footage videos. >> that is my point if the majority is in possession of a full and ended videos? >> the answer is no we are not. but i would suggest there in possession of be enough to indicate that living human viable babies are murdered and body parts harvested. >> has the majority received videos from this organization? >> we have looked at the ones available we have now received a directly from the

organization. >> has a majority communicated with this organization to seek copies of the unedited versions? >> the answer is we have received any footage. >> my inquiry is if parliamentary inquiry. has the maturity communicated is an effort to obtain copies of an edited videos or its connection

with the ongoing investigation of cmb with respect to the videos? >> they are not in committee records at this time we have made a formal request for that. >> with that i will recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you. it seems to me this hearing is not whether there is a crime committed or not. that is a decision for the department of justice even though my friend from georgia acted as a defense lawyer defending someone that has not been charged. the issue is whether or not taxpayers should find planned parenthood. that is the issue before the

committee today. this is my opinion the nays interesting plant km maybe is the plant non km but that is my personal opinion. we talk about women but i will ask some questions. is there any reason taxpayers should fund planned parenthood or are there other options where women can receive women's health care? in america don't have the statistics in front of me by your own state funds women's health that a higher level at the state level there is more funding than there has been in the past despite the

restrictions placed on abortion facilities three different measures. that is a great example we know texas is still finding at the all-time high level i apologize at all have that information but i was reading it last night. i have to say as a woman who survived an abortion there is something wrong when health care and women's needs and the power of its is based on someone's life ending. >> thank you. my understanding 732 federally qualified health centers in texas and 38 planned parenthood center is. the issue of the of videos to be edited or not, we

could have a discussion. do we have the full video? all of the emails? [laughter] what about the side deals with the iranian nuclear agreements? we're always missing something when we want to make a decision and here we are wanting a full video that will play out but the issue is whether or not there should be federal funds for federal plant non km. -- plant non km. tell us about your knowledge back with dash based on your background what you know, ? >> my biological mother went to planned parenthood and they advised her to have is the lead abortion.

so they have had an enormous impact on my life i do have the gift ofs terrible policy from a direct lack of oxygen to vibrate from that procedure. margaret sanger was quite an individual she said if i may, i will read this quotation the most merciful thing a large family does to one of the infant members is to kill it. that is the woman that began this organization. >> you have a problem with statues of her. >> a little bit. >> yes.

>> just your own database on your life experiences and i value a great deal, thank you. >> should the taxpayers fund planned parenthood in organization that does harvest body parts of the unborn? >> absolutely not. >> my time is expired i yield back. >>. >> mr. chairman not my apologies -- my apologies for stepping up the secretary of labor meeting and i had to go over a two-year deal with that. however i had the benefit to

read the testimony and here it this morning. it seems to me there is a lot of distortions and interns of how we approach this issue but the real agenda is pretty obvious to try to outlaw or eliminate abortion in the united states. that is the right women have under the constitution, at least in the first trimester. and it is a thinly veiled attack on the right that women have. now you are at the law school, i have well list of the services that are provided by planned parenthood in my state of california, 117 centers just

over 800,000 patients. nine of the abortion services are provided by the federal government but only these services of contraception or stds treatment breast exams even sexual education and outreach. what the impact would be if you had a chance to look at california's impact. what would happen to their patients? >> thank you for the question. i don't have the exact number but i know, and this is the terrible irony of the hearing with the ada to defund planned parenthood if

you take away bin on abortion related services then what would end up happening would be a significant increase in the number of unintended pregnancies and therefore the increase in the number of abortions that will occur. that is just the impact on the abortion rates alone. we're also talking about the ability of women, particularly though income to obtain high quality services that simply cannot be absorbed by state committee health centers as has been suggested. talk about cancer screenings or roma's exams or pap smears or aristide testing. it has become so popular not because it provides abortions but a wide range of services that women and

men need to stay healthy and it does so at a reasonable cost with very high quality. that is why i support planned parenthood and apply a vast majority of the american people do as well. >> in my community anomaly provides birth control and cancer screenings but it also provides pediatric care. it is the whole family women and children getting immunizations. >> yes. that is an important point that the name planned parenthood would disagree with the member before coming it is very apt because planned parenthood is about helping people plan their families when they will have them to take care of their families.

>> talk of shutting the government down that it would somehow stop. what would happen to the funding if we had a government shut down the end of this month? to read because i am not an official i don't know what would happen exactly it would be medicaid recipients would not be covered and an able to go to the clinic and children would go without health care. >> it would not defund abortions. the question of funding ability of money is ironic under federal law we don't

consider money fungible in this way because there really doesn't apply for gore does not move from one spiffier to another. we allow the funding of secular services at faith based organizations. so we recognize letters separate the your hair to keep those separate as well because they are separate in reality. >> can you describe the process of a partial birth

abortion as a people have a better understanding why it may be banned? >> yes the partial birth abortion is where they partially delivered of the of baby leaving the head of the birth canal and the baby is alive then takes an act to kill the baby at the port thrusting scissors into the back of the school to kill the baby bin completes the delivery. it is a way to kill the baby when most of it has already ben outside of the womb. >> there are people who argued against band-aid that barbaric practice. >> jazz from we have heard

today a continuation of partial birth abortion santeria have no respect for human life reconsider that to be on foreign. >> go to that point because professor smith draws the line between a the humidity to a viable fetus have a lack of humanity owed to what she considered to be a nonviable fetus. who gets to draw that line of demarcation? >> that is a complex question. it is say medical determination if a child is viable but it is difficult and there are many gray areas is not one out of four cancer by.

so if anyone should be considered viable. but you simply don't know until later i don't know anyone who works at abortion clinics wakes a complex medical decisions. >> it should be up to the doctors to make that determination it was lawyers who came up with the plan not one was a doctor. and to when roe v wade was decided for those watching

at home doesn't civil law recognize the of viability of the pre-viable fetus when it comes time to get paid? >> with the deaths of the unborn and to punish. >> we will get to the criminal law is stick with civil when it comes time for the trial attorney we have a different definition of viability. >> you could be two weeks pregnant and you have a cause of action. but they have no trouble being paid for the life of that to recall. >> the idiots use separate using viability as a standard is antiquated and most courts have gone away from that.

for if the child is alive. but to have of pre-viable baby did i misunderstand? you have been sitting beside her did imus something? is there something outside the bounds of decency that we will not allowed as long as the fetus is pre-viable? >> as i understand her testimony if born alive infant is considered to be nonviable they have a free fire zone they to do you ever they want to harvest the tissues were the case may be and the concern that

is demonstrated to the videos that the unborn children are alive. that they had a beating heart is a definition to be alive. >> that is why partial birth abortion i have two questions. if we were to double the amount of money to someone not named planned parenthoo who it was going. >> anyone not named planned parenthood. >> 91. >> 81 qualified. >> if they provide high quality eight - - quality service is the same with planned parenthood does, frankly yes. >> so you were okay with us to defund as long as the money goes somewhere that it

can do the same amount of good with the same group of people you are okay? >> nine in the current environment where there is no one. >> if there were? >> it would be a different world then guess you could find that organization. >> so we could identify providers that make that same policy would support republicans to defund planned parenthood? >> i am not sure we will agree to those people are. how about try? >> as well as it doesn't go to planned parenthood as well as it doesn't go to planned parenthood? >> today is the institution that has the best high quality care across the nation.

>> is the target so as long is to get the same level of care but this is my you oppose them and it is the only reason. >> you have no idea i was voting to defund planned parenthood before the videos ever showed up. >> i was not talking about the videos. >> i don't think we know each other well enough for you to say a motive. i yelled back. >> to verify usage murder to determine if a child is viable you have to ask a doctor. so consequently would you support a requirement with the unborn child is born alive it be transported to

hospital so it can survive if i will? >> if it is liable. >> transported to a hospital where medical doctors can ascertain. >> can we have a second round of questions? >> i would have to see the bill i am not prepared. >> i believe you were next. >> said to offer millions of women who otherwise would go with kind and considerate and compassionate that is

not offered in other venues. >> if you were pregnancies is a way to stop abortions. how do you stop? have urged you allow in the 21st century? our to allow women if they are not in charge of their reproductive system? so what is going on is planned parenthood has a direct association and that continues to go on. and across the world that has access space judge my

wife. we have two beautiful daughters eight years apart because we had access to birth control so we could determine when we would have children to raise them. when you showed the planned parenthood was selling body parts that we will have a conversation about the future of planned parenthood. and make it very clear with the vaccines forum polio or measles or neurological disorders or cancer or parkinsons' we need to continue to have medical research and part of that is because there is the ability the access to the fetal tissue.

so i just want to say so the delivery system across of country to provide that 80 percent receive birth control services. and to think about the estimated women into devastates just to talk about with universal health care in this country.

to i, if i see a sign? we have been very lucky and fortunate even when we report to have access there are people out there that give the kind of access. i think it is under the belt. >> when you have members of the house of representatives proposing four times we

might want to question clerks ever married and then get religious i will not give them a marriage certificate because of the morality? but his right to defend his two daughters i gave him the best i could to protect their right to of their reproductive system with their conscience. and i need to respect them out. to have a system to respect all women the decisions they have to make every day.

and i will not allow others to promote legislation that putting in jeopardy. >> just like we heard from my good friend is not an issue of morality. it is an issue whether planned parenthood broke the law selling fetal body parts. whether that will is illegal for them to do what they we're doing but the real tragedy is we're confronted by it to the reduced to mere commodities?

i do not want to contribute to a system that profits nor do i want to subject to support this violation of life. but to boiled this down to medical terms to ignore the real loss when reach choose to reject someone before he/she has been given a chance to live like these two beautiful women who are here today and have testified -- justified so eloquently. and for those to come for life potential and uncertain and i am glad to have the opportunity to live when you're choosing to spend time with us today.

>> my mother got arresters tool passed away 10 years ago this month. i love her most of all because at the time of her pregnancy as a single mom she was encouraged by people like miss smith and others to abort me but was told the only way it should have a life, a good life was to make sure she did not have this baby. to make the choice not to just give me life to give me a good life. to make a deal with regard to do everything in her power she was the single mom share would give me a the best opportunity data rand

rate talk about this in scientific terms refer get we talk about children and human life so the potential to be with they can be. when i watch the of videos i it mitt i could only watch to there are seven or eight i could not watch after the second. to me it was a moral. -- jim morrow what i saw the video. we can have the discussion if at some point there should be abortions we will disagree on that discussion but i can tell you at that point this nation should decide if we are a moral or

immoral bashan. so i have a few questions. of the size federal funding is not used for abortion but yet you go on to say defunding planned parenthood would be paid to an increase of abortion and so explain to me what you all the associate abortion with planned parenthood but failed to recognize the connection when he actively contributes money? >> what i was saying is if you defiant planned parenthood to defund contraceptive services. >> as he said if we gave them to other community health organizations would that be okay. >> the only one to provide high-quality care?

>> it is though highest quality. >> but there are others. >> there are community health centers the why people go to planned parenthood. >> what remains for using taxpayer dollars. >> you have elaborated on if it violated the law lot. >> even if the current laws are not violated to violate moral and ethical principles to violate the safeguards as wrong as the nih panel was

to recommend this research at least they talk about the proposed safeguards kid when the laws were passed it was passed by those who want to facilitate and beyond what the panel was to. with the protection of the financial incentives to provide the necessary protections to speak for the abortion industry to stay there in a free fire zone if they are not viable. >> i yield back.

>> get marks the first hearing after the link the august recess how fitting it is devoted to read motivated attack to women's health care and those who provide it. a clear the entire premise of the hearing is based on fibril videos that have been dissected to bond and is credited. for three years and antiabortion activist fraudulently cast themselves as a goal to find a moment to catch a staff of violating the law and after three years of deception they failed. so the extremist heavily edits footage with 2.7 million americans every year as a for-profit enterprise in a preposterous

black-market of fetal tissue to be scrubbed out and with the donation process. and return that planned parenthood to not engage in any wrongdoing. with bipartisan support the goal those that decide to donate the doltish teaches science and perhaps contribute to research to cure alzheimer's so that fetal tissue research is legal and family planning is legal and as witnesses like to pretend otherwise the abortion is legal.

yet here we are this deception that one out of five american women rely on in their lifetime but guess what? no federal funding goes to abortion so defunding that it is 97 percent of what they do is not abortion protest, risk control, screenings with access to others and you deny prenatal care. so the provider that serves over 2.7 million americans? and has nothing to do with abortion. that does spend federal funding to prevent unwanted

pregnancies and in 2013 alone to help prevent 1 million unintended pregnancies that would have likely lead to 300,000 more abortions that year. but what i do know anyone ever had to talk educational goals or career plans with the phrase unless i get pregnant and i no federal or a prepared this them from using tax dollars and frankly i think they should have access and this movement is not justin attacked on the entire concept of reproductive justice that all women regardless of weight room -- race or background have the

right to to manage their reproductive health. to control their own destinies it is an attack on the economy and on the dignity of women. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i recognize mr. radcliffe >> thank you for convening this hearing although i wish it was unnecessary. the sitter's spearheading the critical investigation bin the beginning of the investigation. i didn't come to make conclusions i'd like the

other dinner credit colleagues who have been making conclusions from the beginning of the hearing to be stated there is no credible evidence that planned parenthood violated the law. the democrats can feigned outrage prodigious the obligation of converse a federal tax dollars going to planned parenthood we have an obligation to determine their using the federal tax dollars. >> with those of east texas want to talk about what they

saw in the planned parenthood videos. but they are areas real to the 700,000 texans that i represent and i came here today to rest questions about that bin generally they are sickened by what they have seen in those videos. earlier today but what representatives have said to examine that footage i see an organization that has a blatant disregard and i know you talk about how those videos are not reliable but that is not the same as saying they are not true you were here today to say none of those statements made by planned parenthood employees

were not true, are you? >> sometimes the words that they edward they did say the videos read it did and what i do agree with me if they are true. >> so let's talk about those statements this is the most just dated speed is the closest thing to a baby i have never seen. the notes were still firing pattern of that means it is technically dead or alive the was it completed the tornadic had eyelids but since it was so intact this is a really good fetus and

of the site we could procure of what we will procure neighboring. i am not asking if it is true but if it is what i do agree that that is outrageous and raises questions of the legality of actions taken a planned parenthood. >> i don't think it does. when she is talking about is a gay and abortion of a reprieve viable fetus that is distasteful to many of us. the language we often equate to fetus with baby. rather than a fetus so few juxtapose those images it is very distasteful but.

>> i will reclaim my time. >> darr understand we will disagree if you use the term fetus i use baby but that doesn't give reason to think that congress should investigate if that is true to violate the partial birth van or born alive lot? >> i will talk briefly. >> i will move on. you said you don't agree with me. the usage to be okay to defund planned parenthood if it made the same federal tax dollars available to other providers that were qualified to give health care to women in this country. >> if there was an institution that provided as high quality care on.

>> but that is what i am talking about comprehensive cleric clinics river there are many. >> there are 13,000 federal qualified health care centers for women in this country. >> can they provide much lower quality health care and unfortunately there is an article i think and so on the difference between community health centers and planned parenthood. >> with all due respect. >> there is a reason people go to planned parenthood because the care is compassionate and it is good. >> is that what we saw in the videos? >> we have to agree to your disagree. >> i will heal the back.

>> wish i could say that is to launch another attack but already the house has voted from private insurance to allow employers to use discriminate for using birth control and now conducting a so called the investigation rather than evidence. but to legitimize the extremists whose only real intent was with the health care providers in communities across the country. in my state of washington receive these consequences and last friday one clinic was a victim of arson a senseless act of violence.

it is time to start focusing on the fax that defunding planned parenthood would have a devastating impact on access to care that includes well women visit san cancer screenings and immunizations , birth control and in fact, more than 90 percent of services provided are preventative. we cannot allow the reckless actions of a few extremists to jeopardize the critical safety net. and with that of light to submit for the record support for planned parenthood. >> professor smith.

>> of a the to get your opinion is it your understanding some would be left without preventative health services and there were no longer available? >> i don't know the details of the areas that are read out committee health centers i also question the level of services and there remains the only option for many people to obtain the services. >> let me correct the record that mr. labrador said that people like ms. smith encourage people to have abortions and i have never encourage someone to have an abortion i have talked to friends to have considered and discussed their options but i would never push

anyone to have an abortion. of those have gone in for the pap test 14,000 breast exam so we are talking about preventative services. >> that is a huge number. what if the services were no longer available? >> those that have access to high-quality services. >> to talk about the attacks and we have seen there is a

history of this. >> there have been nine different with a smear campaign since 2000 everything from the i statutory rates and that certainly has gone on their return there is a full investigation to get in the press things are investigated it happened again and again and i will predict that will happen in again this time. >> it is unfortunate it is happening right now. i yield back the remainder of my time.

>> thanks to those of you who'd showed up to testify today. but it is very important to all of us to take exception with that last exchange like smear tactics or smear campaign or a check on women's health what could you have us do? all of us had to witness what we saw in those videos for it is funded by united states government by taxpayers and it is our responsibility for republicans and democrats to address issues in this format and ruby easy to walk away to pretend like it didn't happen as congress does that allow but in this

case the videos were so abhorrent and unconscionable that it is our responsibility to see before rigo for word funding for the sake of having done it before. i am not here on of witchhunt i avenue member i am not a part of anything in the past as a republican or democrat but americans citizen i am a taxpayer and it is our responsibility to marshal resources to do that in a way consistent with fiduciary duty. that said when they see the video i am outraged and as a citizen i want to talk to all of you. >> it is important they want to get back to a question

that is the discussion we had a valuable consideration whether or not any testimony we have heard is illegal. what is viable consideration and? and to my legal counsel to suggest there is a gaping hole for reasonable payments for reimbursable cost whatever that might mean. this is between one of the folks and to individuals with planned parenthood. reactor that was there for the undercover video said we agree $100 would keep you happy. correct? and replied the acetic director of planned parenthood.

to say let me find out what other affiliates are getting their getting substantially more. they say yes. the money is not the important thing but it has to be big enough that it is worthwhile. the person says no. but it is something to talk about. one of the first things that you brought up. but the undercover person says here is another thought we can talk about a specimen from a tissue sample. if we could get a liver pair that is $75 per specimen that is $150.