this. the context of the comments that i made were in relationship to a hearing is the chairman of the oversight committee that i conduct. the hearing that we conducted in oversight was about the finances of planned parenthood. we didn't get into the content of what they do. we didn't get into the content of video. we didn't get into the practices that they do. we didn't get into the fetal body tissue issue. we didn't do that. we were very narrowly focused on the finances. point we were making is that planned parenthood had revenue of $127 million with expenses. we started to work as a nonprofit organization on what people making and how they were spending that money. they were giving it to political organization and having a lot of shared services. i think that's a legitimate question as we look at the finances from an organization is

structured as a nonprofit organization. i would ask a direct question about the finances. that's the way i took the question given that is the direction and the drive for the hearing was about. if we find any wrongdoing? the answer was no. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i willen just one moment. but me finish my thought. it's inappropriate to suggest that i have come to some grand conclusion about every part of their operation. we did in the oversight government reform committee we have some of those videos. we have jointly worked with the democrats on that. we had a court ruling earlier this week to get the rest of those videos. there would be a temporary restraining order in california that would not release those videos. the judge recently ruled in our favor to those videos are now

being sent to congress. they may have arrived and i'm not aware of it and i will work with liza cummings and figure out the best course on what to do with these videos. but just caution to members that it's a bit of a stretch to say that i have done conclusive investigation on all the actions of planned parenthood. i look at the finances and to have a hearing specifically asked to the revenue portion? yes. was there any wrongdoing? i didn't find any but i do think it's a legitimate question for all of us why do we send money to an organization where the revenues exceed their expenses by $127 million. it doesn't so much an organization that needs to be supplemented by taxpayer dollars. i'm happy to yield. >> would yield for a question? i just want to ask representative whether or not you have any evidence whatsoever that planned parenthood has

broken the mold in any way? >> i think the video that's been out there if the rumors have been swirling some of the testimony that we have heard causes a lot of people to legitimately ask and i than two whether or not what they are doing is illegal. i think it's a very legitimate question from an objective point of view without getting into the emotions of it and so i think there will continue to be investigations but i voted in favor of the select committee which i think does have to go further and dive deeper into those issues that i don't think the final chapter has been written on that. my point was we were talking about specifically the finances and i would remind members there is all this criticism that we are going after women. that is so false. what was the first not-for-profit organization that we would after? it was the nfl. i called up the nfl.

they were structured as a not-for-profit organization. recall recall that roger goodell for making an exorbitant salary and taking advantage of the tax code in the nfl to their credit restructured and per the first time i believe it started in the first of july they there are now no longer a not-for-profit organization. in a very bipartisan way with elijah cummings and the democrats we worked on that issue invaded major transformation, a major change and i think looking at another not-for-profit organization he was taking hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money made a legitimate decision in the context of an 18 plus trillion dollar debt. that's a discussion we had. i'm proud of it and i think we had a very good year. with that i go back to. >> thank you and i recognize that someone from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. ms. stoltenberg would you mind my having a look at one of the books you have compiled.

i will send someone down to take a look at it and while she's coming down to do that let me ask dr. levatino a question, sir. is there any circumstance under which you would agree that a woman should have a right to have an abortion to abort a fetus that arose from or rape? >> if i were congressman sir i would not support such a law. >> you wouldn't support such a law? >> not end, allow. >> see you believe a woman should have the right to choose in the case of or rape? >> if the woman is pregnant by or rape or child is innocent all the same. morley at the great problem with that. politically i wouldn't vote for such a law.

>> and what about you ms. stoltenberg? >> two wrongs don't make a right. a heartbeat at 21 days. it's never okay to have an abortion. we have 57 million missing people since 1973. >> so you went to work at planned parenthood knowing that part of the work that planned parenthood does is terminating pregnancies. >> actually no i didn't. >> did you know that when you want to wear? >> i started as a clinic assistant. >> let me ask you this question. you are a woman who was fired by planned parenthood and you are a disgruntled ex employee. is that correct? >> well that's what they say. >> while you were fired, correct? >> they were downsizing. >> and you are not disgruntled. is that correct? >> no that is not correct. >> so you loved planned

parenthood? >> i loved my work there. there were things that happened there that i knew were wrong like making medicaid eligible women pay for their pills. >> do you believe they should be defunded? >> i don't think one more dime of taxpayer money should go to an organization that is wrought with fraud. >> dr. levatino and thank you ms. thayer. it's a whistleblower case where if you when you wow a lot of money. >> i've never really talked about that. >> while you wow a lot of money if you win, take it from me. >> my ford fiesta is paid for so i don't know what i would do with that. >> money doesn't matter. >> telling the truth is what matters. >> okay. mr. levatino as far as you know planned parenthood doesn't make political contributions?

>> i have no idea what contributions planned parenthood makes. >> or if they do make contributions. they don't do it today ms. fredrickson? >> i'm not in the corporate structure of planned parenthood. >> all right, dr. doctor are you aware of the stories of the many women whose lives have literally been saved by planned parenthood? >> in what ways are? >> that's not my question. my question is are you aware of that being the case? >> it's hard to answer the question without knowing what context you are asking. >> how about you miss up to? >> i guess i would answer the same. >> you heard about tiffany you could afford it regular doctors visit so planned parenthood was earl may option in the routine pap smear at planned parenthood

diagnosed her with cervical cancer, the earliest discovery of which saved her life. you are not familiar with tiffany's case? >> i guess i would ask how much money they asked from tiffany after they did her pap smear. >> i'm sure it was gladly payable for life to be saved. >> it would be 50% of whatever charges were that day. >> it could not be more than the value of her life, i can guarantee you that. i'm sure she's quite happy with the little bit that she paid. >> if she would have gone to a federally qualified health center would have been free. >> maybe she could not have gotten transportation. >> in my town is four blocks from the planned parenthood. >> that's in your neighborhood but there are other people at different circumstances and shouldn't you be concerned about them? >> there are 20 free clinics for everyone planned parenthood. compared to plant parroted there everywhere. >> the purpose of this hearing

was to shut down planned parenthood because of abortion. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. gohmert for 55 minutes and would you heal back to me briefly? >> yes i would. >> thank you. i just wanted state for the record regarding points made in the state of georgia for ford -- there are for planned parenthood locations all of which provide abortion services. in georgia there are 274 health care alternatives that provide women services that do not provide abortions so in terms of the convenience and location i think it would get good argument that there is much more convenient to get to a public health care facilities that do not include abortion services. >> thank you.

ms. thayer i think there was some effort to cast doubt on your capabilities in working for planned parenthood since you were not an attorney. i don't know how many attorneys we have running planned parenthood facilities but i hope there aren't many. >> there is typically one. >> one lawyer per planned parenthood? >> they do lobbying and they run the political action committee. >> planned parenthood has said back? how many mammograms did those packs to? >> planned parenthood does not give mammograms. >> so if we cut federal funding for planned parenthood across the country how many women would be denied mammograms? >> zero.

>> but if we cut funding for planned parenthood, there would be some lawyers lobbying and people that get clinical donations that would not be getting those political donations to lawyers would have to look for some other form of money and financing, right? >> yes. >> my friend from california indicates, indicated there was a myth that if we do for planned parenthood and we provide services to all the women that planned parenthood that are healthy and yet when we hear the actual facts, it turns out wow if we provided the money directly to health care facilities that do nothing but help women with a full range of services for women including

mammograms and things that planned parenthood never does, it sounds like that women would have even better services, more services even though a lot of parts would break for the lawyers that would not be able to get the federal funding and be able to lobby and donate to democratic friends. i was so pleased with a comment from my friend from tennessee that benghazi was politics. that's exactly what we have been trying get to. it was politics. you had people meeting here in america in washington while people were dying, while david evans and glenn dougherty go into the rooftop to man guns to try to protect the people in

those facilities. yes, benghazi was about politics and i would love to know what the president was doing that night because i can tell you if i had people that worked for me my personal ambassador is missing, i could not go to bed. and yet apparently there was plenty of rest before he went to the fund-raiser in las vegas the next day. yes, my colleague is right, benghazi was about politics and we need to get to the bottom of why those poor people were killed while nobody in washington that knew what was going on lifted a finger. and why -- doesn't get an american plane. he is on a gurney and they are

beating his leg against the size of that plane was somebody in washington knows that they are doing nothing. you bet it's politics and a lot more people died and a lot of people suffered because of that politics. this is a hearing about planned parenthood. my colleagues want to keep talking about benghazi. i felt that we were going to bring it up we need to say yes that was politics and we need to find out why it was so political instead of coming together as americans and protecting those people. my time has expired. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida mr. deutsch for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman it's remarkable to me that the issues of the majority have collided into one hearing. instead of a planned parenthood has become a hearing of benghazi. yesterday the select committee investigated abortion practices meeting today's hearing is more pointless than it was before.

the house judiciary committee is now one of four in the house investigating planned parenthood. what exactly are we investigating today? let's be clear, no one has said this yet but we need to be clear about it. the goal of the majority is to return to a nation where roe v. wade does not allow the land and where women do not enjoy the constitutional right that the supreme court made clear they had to make decisions about their own bodies. now, i don't know why we are here here to talk about the fruitless investigations. six different states including lampett failed to find wrongdoing by planned parenthood. brunett here to discuss tissue donation given to "the new england journal of medicine". virtually every person's country has benefited from research using fetal tissue and we are not here to discuss the federal court order issued this week mandating the center for medical progress turnover more of its fraudulent documentation. this hearing's only purpose is

to smear health care provider that helps millions of women every year he provided that i might add enjoys a higher approval rating above the mac and people than i would get any member in this body enjoys. as his committee contemplates the medical ethics of women's reproductive freedom i asked this question. what are the medical ethics of not holding any hearings on the gun violence epidemic to claim the lives of 30,000 americans every year? one of the medical ethics of not holding a hearing on the 12 thousand honda side and accident and death in 18,000 gun deaths by suicide every year what are the medical ethics of states trying to ban pediatricians from discussing basic safety measures with parents? this house judiciary committee has held zero hearings by the violence epidemic that claimed millions of americans. every day an average of 88 americans die of gunshot wounds.

it has inflicted so much grief in america. not after tucson editor aurora not after new town not after santa barbara and there has been none scheduled after roseburg and not after the more than 200 mass shootings that have occurred in 2015 alone. october is domestic violence awareness month in 2013 alone more than 1500 women were murdered by men and 94% of the more gun deaths. so while this committee continues its redundant attacks over women's health that ignores the reality that every day american women are murdered due to domestic and violence. as congress works to ensure that women face more obstacles the u.s. congress stands idly by as violent offenders are going over background checks to get guns to commit further crimes. the american people are rightly frustrated with congress for failing to take any action, even

the most basic actions approaching this gun show loophole and the bills that deserve hearings in this committee of their jurisdiction, the judiciary committee. i don't have time to name them all but i will name a few. as a bipartisan second amendment protection act introduced by congressman condit and king. it would close gun deal empowering law enforcement to stop the flow of guns tortured by trappers to make a living selling guns to criminals. congresswoman maloney's legislation to lift the ban on federal research on gun violence and how to best curb it. here's my own legislation. the safe and responsible firearms transfers act to prevent them from being sold without background checks. not one of those bills, not one has been the subject of a hearing from this committee mr. chairman. out of a hearing where the majority can tell us why bipartisan proposal supported

overwhelmingly i -- and gun owners are too extreme. there's not been a single hearing in the 114 congress on any improvements or go mozza and abe the people are frustrated with congress for failing to act on gun violence. the time for silence on this issue is over. at the beginning of the hearing today one of my colleagues talked about the self-imposed blindness. that's a self-imposed blindness that congress has to gun violence. he said the humanity of the victim he hopes become so wearing that moves an entire generation of american people. i can only hope that the humanity of the thousands, tens of thousands of lives lost to gun violence might move this congress to finally take action. i yield back. >> the chairman yields back. the chair nice as the gentleman from idaho mr. labrador for five

minutes and would the gentleman yield briefly? i would like to say that there are right now on the books hundreds of federal gun control laws and regulations and yet in the last six years to prosecutions for violations of all those laws are down by 30%. it seems to me that the administration that is led an individual who calls for more laws every time we have one of these tragedies ought to go look in the mirror and determine what is appropriate. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i will not yield. it is a problem that can be addressed with a laws that exist now. there are by the organization that is the actual subject of this hearing today 350,000 plus or minus abortions conducted by

this organization every year. nearly 1000, nearly 1000 a day. that's why we are here opposed on this hearing today to make sure that we are aware of whether more laws are needed to protect the lives of the unborn and i yield back to the gentleman from idaho. thank you. >> enqueue mr. chairman and thank you for making out point but i was also going to make. it's hard to sit here and be quiet about something like that when there's no concern for the life of children, babies, babies born alive. doctors levatino can you tell me how many babies are born every single day? >> i have no idea. >> do you know ms. thayer? >> there are 13 in iowa every day. we think of it as a kindergarten kindergarten -- a kindergarten class every day. >> do you know how many late-term abortions there every day? >> not exactly. >> ms. frederiksen? >> first of all i don't think

late-term is a technical term so i don't know how to respond to that but i don't know the number of abortions that take lace in america every day. >> you don't but you are an expert on this issue? >> i'm not here to talk about medical procedures. i'm here to talk about the law. >> i was just lectured and i wanted to know if the panel knew how many children are being killed every single day. do you know? >> i believe it's almost 4000 a day. not just planned parenthood but they abortion industry. >> to want to contain to emphasize that this is not a question of legality of planned parenthood's actions. we may never find a answer to the question whether they are legal or not legal but reducing human beings as a commodity by selling fetal body parts i think everyone should agree is morally reprehensible.

based on the percentage it would also appear that planned parenthood participated another suspicious behaviors and all of that at the expense of the american taxpayer. i'm not convinced that planned parenthood was ceased to exist without taxpayer funding. furthermore i'm not convinced that we fund planned parenthood would disadvantage women to the extent that my colleagues would like to claim. i want to talk about my home state of idaho. it has three planned parenthood locations. two in the boise air he asked, one in southeastern idaho. and if you look that has 129 health care alternatives. all three of these are within 136 miles of each other and includes a vast amount of rural areas. according to planned parenthood's own data is presented in idaho server around 7000 and 2013.

alternatively if the state of idaho had 76 federally qualified health center service sites compared to a little over 100 38000 cases in 2013. the difference between three and 76, the difference between 7000 cases and 138,000 cases any one making the argument that they are not going to receive health care is really lying to this committee. these service sites cover a broader's cross-section of the state and have the diversity to cover it fast -- ms. frederiksen can you walk us through the services that planned parenthood provides once again? >> the vast majority of planned parenthood services are related to reproductive health care. it provides family planning counseling and contraception, contraceptive care as well as cervical cancer test and breast exams.

>> how is that different than the other federally qualified health? >> it's an absolutely critical part of our health care infrastructure. >> but more women use the other federal health centers. >> public health experts say there's no way the public health system can absorb the capacity would be lost if planned parenthood was not funded. >> but the numbers don't speak to that. >> i defer to the experts as they think congress should. >> name one expert. >> i named them in my testimony. >> can you name one right now? >> the american public health association. >> thank you. they take you a couple of seconds there. the chair recognizes atonement from illinois mr. gutierrez from illinois. >> thank you mr. chairman. first of all it's illegal in the united states of america to have an abortion. it's the law of the land and we

oppose the constitution and the laws of this land. now it's clear to anybody listening to this but this is about planned parenthood. planned parenthood offers abortion but they are not doing anything illegal when they do it and no one here has testified that they are doing anything illegal. based on the fact that they offer abortions because it sets their point of view. they don't like the law. they can change the law. they can't undercut the constitution of the united states and the supreme court. they tried to sully the reputation of an organization and you know what, you guys have opened one big pandora's box here because on repeated occasions here today the minority and their witnesses have questioned the integrity of members of the minority panel by questioning to it as campaign contradictions from.

so from here forward we just should opened up mr. chairman every time on any issue that i want to know how much from the nra and every dollar you receive and we should just opened up. i'm not that worried. i told women of america you were safe because you have for president of the united states that will veto any legislation that comes out of this committee to do for the house. there's nothing you can do about it. i'm not worried. they can't figure out how to -- the speaker of the house. you think they will turn back the clock on women in america? i'm not that worried about where we are going but i will stand up for one because it seems to me what we are really talking about here today is turning back the clock. turning back the clock in which i grow. when i was born in the united

states of america separate but equal was still the loveland when i was born. the only day that i was wife was the day that i was born and they put it on my purse at the to get. the problem with that is i was never treated equally. certainly separate but not equal. women had to go to back alleys and cross-state lines and have to lose their license in order to get reproductive health care rights. that's true. we all know it but let me just suggest, my mother's only option was to one option the government of the united states gave her which was sterilization. ..

so, look nothing here that any of the witnesses have said that even those afforded by the minority will change anything. we are good. we are in a good place because there is a new, growing, coalition in america. we all know what it is. it is people people who care about mother earth. it's people who care about women and their rights. it's people who care about immigrants, it's, it's people who care about making sure we have parenting, you want to know something? we can talk about the polls. i have a poll. in my vote the vast majority american people want to move forward and not turn back the clock. thank you very much. >> the chair recognizes the

gentleman from texas, for five minutes. >> i just want to make one point that when we passed the same capable abortion act that you introduced into the record as evidence, that in every demographic group, men, women, people of various races, age, and every demographic group the majority of the people in this country support prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. i think the gentleman, i yelled back. >> thank you. i want to try to get back on the subject we have been talking about. mr. johnson on the other side past his planned parenthood political contributions, if i remember the testimony to have

you said that he didn't, that planned parenthood didn't give contribution to anyone. do you know whether planned parenthood contributes to federal candidates? >> yes i do, they have a pass. >> and what is the name of the pass. >> i don't remember. it is just call the the packed. >> planned parenthood pack? >> yes. >> would it surprise you and the election cycle of 2014 the planned parenthood pack contributed to a little over $400,000 to candidates. >> know that would not surprise me at all. >> hundred 38 candidates. >> $400,000, seems like you could do a lot of other things with $400,000 instead of giving it to people running for congress. >> one thing they did do with it was take some of that money and put doctors and nurse

practitioners in rural centers. planned parenthood in iowa, we had a planned parenthood practitioner to ours a week. in a most 18 years there we had a dr. in the facility, three or four times. all of those pills are being dispensed by nonmedical people. i think i be a much better use of their money. >> and since the minority to bring it up, mr. up, mr. chairman i would like to introduce for the record the open secrets document, contribution file and planned parenthood pack. >> without objection objection we make it part of the record. >> the talk has also been about, and i resent the other side talking about and generalizing those of us over here are against women, i reasoned that. i have four children, three daughters, 11 grand kids, grandkids, seven daughters, one of those is adopted. i am not a female, i agree with that comment.

but the idea that we don't like women is absurd. i think many of us are trying to look out for the life of new woman, and into the world. what about those women? i think they are women, when they are harvested for their body parts, i am concerned for those women. so i'm not going to put up with saying that me, that i'm opposed to women. let's talk about those women. if if congress doesn't speak to them who speaks for them? do you all speak for them? so, i know know that's not the issue, the issue is planned parenthood. i also think planned parenthood seems to do a good job at

marketing planned parenthood. would you agree with that question mark. >> yes very much so. >> do you have any idea how much plan. it spent on marketing planned parenthood? >> and i what we marketed the plant mean waiver and spent lots of money at the expense of staff raises that year. made it sound the family planning waiver was their own creation and it was actually state dollars. >> i want to apologize for you for the insinuation that you did something wrong by being a was a blower. and you are being attacked because you talked about or brought evidence about an organization. that's what we do, unfortunately unfortunately we attack whistleblowers across the board it seems like. also the comment was made that we have to have planned parenthood or there's no other answer. well, i have this chart, maybe it's on the screen mr. chairman of texas where i am from. most of these, you can't see them too well it would be on the far right on the screen, the planned parenthood areas are in

the metropolitan areas. thirty-eight of them. most of texas is not in the metropolitan area. the state is a vast vast state. their parts over here where the white dots where you have federally funded healthcare centers. i would submit to you into the record there are places in texas that they're federally funded healthcare centers that are not on google maps. they are in remote districts, or in west texas small little towns. so that is not an accurate per trail portrayal of a women's healthcare in the country. federally funded health care are everywhere, rural, city, and planned parenthood in any way is just in the metropolitan area. is that way you understand it? >> the time that the gentleman has expired the lady will be allowed to answer. >> it's important to remember that all of those have doctors

there and they don't charge medicaid eligible women, unlike planned parenthood. >> think you gentlemen. i recognize the gentleman from louisiana. mr. richard for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me just clear up some things, and mr. chairman you volunteer some statistics on how many gun laws we have and that is exactly why we're asking for hearing. >> this committee could do great things, we had to meet the needs of the judiciary which was the cost of the courthouse and building a courthouse, so we really could do big things but we wasted on things like this. my colleague on the others side say what he reasons, if you say you oppose women that's between you and women. what i won't have

as you say and planned parenthood may or may not have donated to someone and affect their positions on choice and other things because i think people make those decisions long before they get to congress. the other thing i would say is hypocrisy in the room is on believable. this year in the state of the union the president mentioned that abortions were at an all-time low, which i would think is our goal. everybody in the room, the goal is to get to zero. the president announced it was on an all-time low, not one person on the republican side stood up or cheered. there are a bunch of ways we can try to get to zero. you can try by doing a law, the

ritual fly out of the country and still have them, the poor will have them in the alleys and risk their life so they can have them, or we can still and best in pre-natal care, paid parental leave, investment in a parental leave, investment in a foster care system. waste the minimum wage so women can raise a child. we can can do all those things but we are not because we're still stuck on saying i am pro-life. yes until the baby is born. then when the baby is born you're like, you're on your old. were your own. were not going to help you do anything. so if we're going to have conversation, if it is about role versus way, we can't do anything about it. as much as the others i would like to be the president and tell him how to handle immigration and other things, they're not the president. as much as you like to overturn roe v way, you're not on the supreme court. you're able to run for president, you're able to express the interest of the supreme court. but we in congress have a bunch of things we could be working on and having meaningful hearings to figure out how weak get to the ultimate decision, the ultimate desire we want.

if it is zero abortions then let's talk about how we get there. you are not going to overturn roe v wade, so i just hate that we come here and we drag our witnesses here and put them in the position of testifying on things they can't control just so we can do messaging. that is the problem in this country. we could be actually trying to accomplish something, we keep talking about benghazi, i'm okay letting the tax play out how the facts play out. i think it is important for the american people to see how government works and you try to figure out how things went wrong and how to fix it. it's too often we play gotcha moments when there are none. instead of being respected for the deceased, the people give their lights for their country, we do things like that to

prevent it from happening again. so let me just say, and i will ask because i do have a minute, do you think if the law says you can have an abortion that we'll go to zero abortion questions mark. >> no i don't believe we go to zero. but i think there many women dying today from legal abortions probably more so because there are more abortions being done because of their are more abortions being done there was when it was back alley. >> do you you think the law of the land would make a decision on your decision? >> if it was illegal then do you think you would've made a decision. >> almost definitely. i didn't do illegal things. i would not have had an abortion. and i be able to see who my children are today. >> but you do agree if it was a

roe v wade was reversed you agree that some women would still have one in back alleys? >> probably, yes. >> and the rich would still fly out of the country and have them in over their country. >> possibly they could. there be many lives that would be spared, many. >> mr. chairman i see chairman i see my time as expires high-yield back. >> recognize from washington. >> think mr. chair. i'm deeply disappointed this committee is holding another one-sided hearing, more about politics than fact-finding. the attacks on women's health never seem to stop. meanwhile, we are ignoring a long list of bipartisan policies that deserve our attention. right now we could be talked about the much update to e-mail privacy lies, we could be

leveling the playing field for brick-and-mortar, or we could get to work on our country's broken immigration system. instead, system. instead, we are wasting more time in an investigation that we prejudge before seen a shred of evidence of planned parenthood. as shameful mr. chairman, this committee this committee should be focused on backs not ideology. so far, there are no facts to substantiate the claims made by my colleagues on the other side of the isle. no evidence that planned parenthood has engaged in unlawful activity. let's talk about what we do know. we know that 2.7 million americans receive essential healthcare every year through planned parenthood. 78% of planned parenthood patients are low income with incomes at or below 150% of the federal poverty level. in my home state of washington, planned parenthood annually provides more than 34000 cancer

screenings. across the country the services provided by planned parenthood help prevent more than 500,000 unintended pregnancies every year. that last number should give my colleagues pause. if we want to reduce the number of abortions provided in this country, attacking planned parenthood is really not the way to do it. but at this point it is clear this investigation is not about gathering facts at all, it is just part of an extreme ideological agenda to defund planned parenthood and take away a woman's constitutional right to choose. mr. fredrickson, your testimony mentions that planned parenthood provides birth control and family-planning counseling to 2.1 million patients per year. could you talk about how women's access to birth control is related to their economic security? >> absolutely, it is a vital part of women's economic

security. women being able to control when, whether they have children has been a critical part of them being able to enter, not quite into equal status in the american economy unfortunately but they are on their way. women are doing better. they are they are able to provide better for their families by ensuring they have the families they have at the time when they want to have families or have children when they to have children. >> will be the impact if access to birth control through planned parenthood would be restricted? >> there be many more unintended pregnancies and ultimately many more abortions. the consequences of defunding planned parenthood would certainly lead to increase abortions in this country. it would undermine women's access to basic contraceptive care which would undermine their ability to earn a living and and control their own economic well-being.

>> so you believe it would be harder for women to plan families, plan careers that congress decided to defund this organization? >> it has been a vital part vital part of women being able to have independence, to be able to exercise, determine their own fertility, determine when and whether they have children, it allows them to enter into the workforce, and to take care of the children they have. it enables them to be treated more clearly the workplace because they do have the choice about whether and when to have children. >> my colleagues across the isle have been talking about how planned parenthood were not available in their region it would have no impact on their access to healthcare. again i ask you, what would be the impact on women throughout our country of planned parenthood is not available for healthcare? >> i think the fact that we

discussed how one of five american women, 20% of the american women in their lifetime will use planned parenthood services. that is. that is an enormously large number, 2.7 million people per year use planned parenthood services. the loss of those, the ability to use a planned parenthood health center would be enormous. >> i think you reference a study that says there are not other community health centers of places that would be able to serve as a population. >> right, the expert opinion of the american health association says there is just not the ability to observe that capacity. those women would go on serve. >> thank you very much. mr. chair high-yield back. >> chairman out yields to a gentleman to new york. >> thank you sir. this is an enormous waste of taxpayer money presta said here at this hearing when we realize,

or should realize this is not a legitimate congressional exercise. this is not a fact-finding hearing, this is theater, this is a charade, this is stagecraft , this is it nothing more than a political hit job on a women's right to choose. which, by the way is constitutionally protected. i have the benefit of being the least senior members here so i get to sit through much of the hearing and there only one or two of us left. this hearing has gone on for our, after hour, after our yet no one has presented a shred of evidence, a piece of evidence

that planned parenthood has done anything wrong. so so i have a few moments and let me see if i can uncover some evidence of wrongdoing. the hearing is called planned parenthood exposed, dramatic. examining abortion procedures and medical ethics at the nations largest abortion provider. so dr. you're the only dr. in the panel correct? >> yes sir. >> do you have evidence that any planned parenthood doctor, nurse, physician, has engaged in wrongdoing, violated medical ethics or lost their license. >> i do not have such evidence. >> you are the only dr. on the

panel, correct? >> creek. >> anyone else on the panel have any evidence that they violated their medical ethics. >> i would consider a violation violation of medical ethics having a web cam abortion without talking to the client. or expecting non- medical people to do medical procedures. >> let's have a discussion, you were with planned parenthood for 18 years, creek. >> yes. >> you are terminated. >> yes. >> one of my plays ask if you are a disgruntled employment? >> yes, they they were downsizing and let me go. >> you allege that planned parenthood was wrought with broad commas that correct. >> correct. >> in fact, you you brought a federal court action claiming they engaged in fraud, true? >> correct. false claims act. >> under the false claims act you'd be what was called a relator. correct? >> corrects. >> the government intervened as well and that action.

>> yes. this was in the southern district of iowa, correct? >> correct. >> you testified earlier that you have no idea if you prevailed if you would receive monetary benefit, did i hear that correct. >> i said said we had not discussed it, i have not discussed it with my attorney speemac.you have not discussed that with your attorney? >> no sir. >> now you allege in this action that planned parenthood engaged in $28 million in fraud, correct. >> correct. >> as a relator, you are entitled, under federal law to between 15 and 25%, correct. >> i don't know. we have never discussed that. >> so you have a licensed attorney have a licensed attorney was never discussed with you the fact, that if you are to prevail in this lawsuit you allege $28 million that you

could receive as much a $7 million. >> sir, for me this is not about the money. it is not about the money i am here to try to tell the truth about planned parenthood and what i experienced in all of those years experienced in all of those years there. >> now you don't have evidence that planned parenthood engaged in fraud? >> i engaged in fraud every day i was there there. >> was your action dismissed at the district court level? >> it was dismissed at district court and then reinstated at the court of appeal. >> actually that's incorrect in our place it into the record. the district court judge dismissed your action because you had no evidence of fraud. by the way, it was a judge appointed by a cw butch. you appealed to the circuit, they are from the decision that you have no evidence of fraud, remanded on a separate ground, good luck and i would point out that the eighth circuit court

judges concluded, based on the district court's decision, you play to plead fraud. >> your time has expired. >> i yelled back. >> you can answer the question if you need to. >> sir, the eighth circuit court of appeal review that it is now back in the district court and we are waiting on drilling for them. >> i would just just as the chair to respond to my requests are to enter as a manner of record both the decision. >> without objection. >> gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have now set through the entire hearing, i, i still don't exactly know what we are doing here. it is clear this is not a hearing about the wrongdoing of

planned parenthood because there is no evidence of wrongdoing. there's no testimony that has been presented that planned parenthood engaged in any wrongdoing. there has been six states that have reviewed this and concluded that planned parenthood has done nothing wrong. seven other states cited a lack of evidence in wrongdoing, so and then someone suggested it's about defunding planned parenthood. what i think the hearing about, as best i i can tell, listen every single one of my colleagues has a fundamental view of some of the witnesses hear that roe versus wade was wrong for society. you have a right right to that opinion. what you don't have a right to do is smear a vital healthcare organization to advance that argument. there are people, i respect deeply, their people have different views and whether women are full control of their reproductive health. >> ..

>> 2.7 million individuals access health care through planned parenthood and that includes, by the way, specifically ms. fredricson, that includes a range of breast

cancer screenings, pap smears, exams for sexually transmitted diseases, hiv test, cervical cancers and a whole range of services. is that correct in >> that is the vast majority of what planned parenthood does. >> 97% of the services they provide. is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> planned parenthood is a respected health care organization and people are suggesting you can get the services elsewhere. but as you have written the experts say that is ludicrous and people making such claims don't understand the health care system is that correct? >> that is correct. >> we are left a hearing that lasted hours with people playing videos, some having nothing to do with planned parenthood,

presumably made claims that have nothing to do with the procedures followed by planned parenthood, in an effort to bolster their opinion against the decision of roe versus wade. planned parenthood has shown it as a vital health care organization and millions of women and families rely on planned parenthood and the individuals who work there are professionals and have integrity and do and take their jobs seriously. i have been to planned parenthood. i have been to a clinic. i spoke to the men and women that work there. i want to say my experience is just the opposite. these are dedicated and committed professionals. it does a disservice to the s r serio seriousness of the debate to align on organization that does important work and saves lives. we can have a debate on if the supreme court should change the decision on roe vur versus wade

but it is the law of the land. you don't attack individuals following the law, performing a legal medical procedure that is saving the lives of women in this country. i regret we spend time for doing that. i thank the witnesses for being here and hope we can focus on theisaacson, ron