>> ms. stoltenberg thank you for sharing with us your feelings about the three abortions you went. on planned parenthood's web site there are freakily asked questions regarding abortion. one considers whether there are long-term risks saying "safe uncomplicated abortion does not cause problems for future pregnancies" and "ultimately most women feel relief after an abortion." based on your experience, do you think these characterizations provide with all the information they need about the risks associated with the abortion procedure they're about to undergo? >> no, i do not. i didn't hear any of those risks from them and i don't believe that's a true statement at all. my story proves that, that this was not safe for me. i could haven't children and these stories prove that.

people have been physically harmed. i have a friend who lost a daughter on the table of an abortioness. there are ramifications and it does hurt women. >> doctor, the 2009 national abortion federation textbook on comprehensive abortion care states that some patients or clinicians prefer initiating the abortion procedure with a non-living fetus for emotional reasons or to avoid the problem of a ran ttransiently living ne. what in plain english are they referring to in this sanitized statement? >> they are referring to -- >> turn your microphone on. >> i have to remember that microphone. they are referring to bringing about a fetal death prior to initiating the procedure.

you can do that a couple of ways. one is through the use of what was on that video. and another is through use of potassium chloride. potassium chloride is a more dangerous drug and it is much more difficult to administer effectively to cause fetal death. by inject iin ining gigoxin, yo cause a fetal death and that obviates the problem -- if you are auk says informal that, it obviates the problem of a live birth. with the abortion that i described initially between 14 and 24 weeks and dismembering a baby, dismemberment abortion, if you wish, there's no chance of a live birth at all. but when you use these later techniques where you are essentially inducing labor, if you don't induce fetal death ahead of time, you run the risk of a live birth then you have

the situation of a person under the law -- even as our laws are constitutes -- that has a right to medical care which is not going to be available in hotel rooms or clinics. these women need to be in hospitals. that's what they're referring to. >> thank you. one more question, doctor. why did you end your practice of doing abortions? >> i did over 1200 abortions over a four year period in private practice, not counting the ones i did during my training. i met my wife during my first year of training at albany medical center, we got married a year later and found we had an infertility problem. after years of failed infertility treatment and several years trying to adopt a child we were blessed with adopting a little girl we named heather in august of 1978. as sometimes happens in those situations, my wife got pregnant the very next month and we had two children ten months apart. two months short of my daughter heather's six birthday she was

killed in an auto accident and literally died in our arms in the back of an ambulance. anyone who has children might think they have some idea of what they feels like but unless you've been through it yourself you have no idea whatsoever. i know people find it hard to believe but what do you do after disaster? you bury your child and go back to your life. and i don't remember exactly how long it was after my daughter died that i showed up at albany medical center o.r. number 9 to perform my first trimester abortion, i wasn't thinking of anything special, this was routine, but i reached in, literally pulled out an arm or leg and got sick. earlier on i describe stacking up body parts on the side of the table. it's not to gross people out, to use a simple term. when you do an abortion, you need to keep inventory, you have to make sure you get two arms and two legs and all the pieces. if you don't, your patient will come back infected, bleeding, or

dead. so i soldiered on and finished that abortion and i know it sounds hard for people to believe but i'm telling you straight up my experience. after over 1,200 abortion, first and second trimester up to 24 weeks and the rest of it and being dedicated to it, for the first time in my life i really looked at that pile of body parts on the side of the table. and i didn't see her wonderful right to choose and all the money i just made, all i could see was somebody's son or daughter and i stopped doing late-term abortions after that and several months later stopped doing all abortions. >> thank you. chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan for his questions. we have a vote on and about 12 minutes remaining so i think if you want to proceed we can get those done. >> yes, sir, i would like to go forward. thank you, and i want to thank all the witnesses.

but i have a question for ms. caroline frederickson please. i'm going to quote from our chairman's men rmorandum on thi hearing. "the purpose of this hearing will be to hear from witnesses on the issues surrounding the alleged acts of planned parenthood. so without commenting on its authenticity, does the video played by the doctor earlier have anything whatsoever to do with planned parenthood? >> i don't see the relevance of the video to -- in a hearing that's supposed to be focused on planned parenthood itself and any allegations, unsupported as they may be, of wrongdoing. so no mr. conyers i don't see

how they relate to this hearing. >> now, can you describe the results of the independent forensic analysis of the videos released by the center for medical progress? >> yes, the inspect examination by the forensic experts found that the videos were completely unreliable because they had been so heavily edited and manipulated and that they could not be shown to prove any evidence of any type of wrongdoing. >> now as you note, miss frederickson, in your testimony, six states -- missouri, pennsylvania, indiana, massachusetts, south dakota -- have looked into allegations of wronggoing at planned parenthood affiliates. can you report to your knowledge what they have found? >> all of them found that there

was no basis for any finding of any wrongdoing by planned parenthood. and so those investigations were dismissed. >> now what would happen to women if roe v. wade were overturned? that's, as you know, the landmark case involving a woman's right to choose. would women still choose to end their pregnancies? would those procedures be safer than those provided by by planned parenthood today? >> mr. conyers, it's true and unfortunate that when abortion was illegal in this country, women did seek abortions and, unfortunately, those illegal abortions are dangerous and put women's lives in jeopardy and women do nonetheless seek out abortions so it's imperative

that abortion remain safe and legal in this country. >> thank you. now there's some who want to push to defund planned parenthood. some v claimed that there are enough other clinics to absorb planned parenthood's patients if planned parenthood affiliates are forced to close their doors. is that true? >> that has been described as actually ludicrous by people -- experts in public health who see that there is no way that these health centers could fill the gap that is provided by by planned parenthood which is an anchor for women's health care in america and is, in fact, the leading health provider of reproductive health care for women. >> now, i'm just about through. is there adequate capacity in the health care system to absorb all of planned parenthood's

patients? >> no, there is clearly no capacity to absorb those patients. those patients would unfortunately have their needs go unmet. they would be less likely to have family planning counseling and access to contraception as well as to basic sexually transmitted disease testing and breast exams and as a result there would be more abortions in this country and not fewer. >> thank you and finally, what kinds of patients might be particularly harmed if those were -- that want to defund planned parenthood were successful in their effort? : mr. conyers, poor women, low income women in this country, women in rural areas would be the ones who would suffer most from not having access to critical services that planned parenthood provides. >> i thank you very much for your testimony and i thank you the chairman. >> the -- there are six minutes

remaining in this vote so the committee will stand in recess and reconvene immediately after the votes. >> the committee will now come to order and i will recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you. at the end of the classic movie "casablanca" the inspector issues an order to round up the usual suspects and every time our friends on the other side of the aisle have a horrific act that's done or alleged to be done by one of their allies they issue a similar order to round up the usual excuses. we've heard them all here today. don't believe your eyes and your ears and what you hear on the

video, look somewhere else. and for goodness sake, don't focus on this horrific act when you could be focusing on some other horrific act that people we don't like might havely committed. this is just political theater. somehow or the other, if you are sensitive and don't like the fact that an unborn child is torn apart limb by limb you aren't talking about that, you have some kind of a massive attack on women in general and don't look at the horrific act that this group might have done because, after all, they might have done some other good acts that weren't horrific and excuses go on and on. and the reality is there is simply no point, there is nothing that our friends on the other side of the aisle would look at this organization and say we might like you but that's just too far and we can't condone that. mr. chairman i would like to now show a video since this seems to be the day of the video if we

could roll that. . [inaudible] >> now,now, mr. chairman, we heard a lot about >> now, mr. chairman, we've heard a lot today about editing of videos. there's no evidence miss frederickson, i think that you have it all, but this video has been edited or anything has been added to it. so the procedures that were discussed in there of crushing an unborn child in more than one place, an unborn child, by the way, that has a heart, a lung and a liver that's so well developed that planned parenthood would want to save the heart, the lung and the liver but would not want to save the life that created it, just

one simple question, is that procedure too brutal for you. >> well, sir, i'd like to respond by saying that as you started describing this as political theater i'd like to reiterate that this is -- >> no, ma'am, you can do what you want, if you don't want to answer the question, you're not going to run the clock on me. >> i'm going to say that -- >> >> yes or no, is it too brutal. >> this is an attack on women's to make -- >> i've got five minutes. you can answer it or not. do you feel that procedure is too brutal. but can you say whether you feel it's too brutal or not. >> i feel abortion should be safe and legal. >> is that procedure too brutal. >> aam not a doctor and i won't comment -- >> if you had a small dog and you had to put that dog to sleep would you think it would be too brutal for the veterinarian to crush that dog in two different places. >> i trust women and their doctors to determine what are the best -- >> let the record show ms. frederickson would not answer the question. doctor, is that too brutal?

>> every abortion involves the destruction of human life. i get frustrated sometimes with the oh, it's not a baby, it's a fetus, we've mostly got beyond the old blob of cells argument. you know what that is? that's your son. that's your daughter. every abortion results in a dead son or daughter. i think it's absolutely gruesome and i thought the example you just gave a minute ago is perfect. if i abused a dog in my town i would be arrested. if i did abortions again, first trimester, second trimester i'd be a hero to so many people. it's absurd. >> mr. chairman, just for the record, you know the point that i think disturbs so many of us is the exact response we heard

from miss frederickson. they won't say that any procedure is too far or not enough or is too brutal and that's the purpose of these hearings because there's a big difference between saying there may not be a law to protect against something, it may not be illegal, and to say there was no wrongdoing done because i think what we heard on that tape was wrongdoing and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman and i recognize the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have heard a lot today about saving lives. after 23 years in congress i am still shocked by the hick pocksy -- hypocrisy we hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle. since 2013 there have been over 900 mass shootings across the country including 300 mass shootings in 2015. an average of more than one mass shooting everyday this year.

10,128 people have been killed this year alone. americans are 20 times for likely to be killed by gun violence than people in any other developed country who are not more or less mentally ill than people in the united states. although we have 30% of the world's population, the u.s. has 90% of the world's firearm homicide. that's 3% of the world's population. how many hearings have my republican colleagues held on gun violence since taking over the house in 2011? none. since sandy hook, the most recent tragedy occurred at a community college in oregon and since the oregon shooting 146 people have been killed in 128 shootings in the united states. not one hearing. not one vote on gun violence. for comparison's take, so months ago an extremist liar released a series of heavily edited and probably illegal videos filled with lies about planned parenthood, an organization that has been providing comprehensive compassionate health care to women for a century. in the last 30 days, the house

has opened three official investigations, spent countless hours in committee hearings and just yesterday voted to establish a fourth investigation to a special select committee. we have taken 20 votes this year alone restricting women's access to health care. this very hearing is the committee's second in to 30 days on planned parenthood despite the fact that this entire farce is knowingly based on lies. if my colleagues had even one shred of evidence that planned parenthood had broken any laws they would have gone to a state or federal prosecutor right away. but they didn't and they don't. perhaps that's why one of my republican colleagues, mr. chaffetz announced on tv just last week that there is no evidence planned parenthood has broken any laws. imagine how many lives we could save if my colleagues devoted even one half of that attention to stopping the epidemic -- and it is an epidemic -- of gun violence in that this country. my colleagues claim we can not possibly take action on gun violence because the right to own a gun is protected by the

prosecution. that's a very funny argument coming from the other side in light of this shameful hearing. you know what else is protected by the constitution? a woman's right to access abortion and to make her own choices about her health care and whether to get an abortion. yet the same colleagues who refused to take action on gun violence has no problem tossing the constitution out the window to impose their own moral opinions on all american women. measures passed at the state and local level put unbelievable restrictions on a woman's right to access abortion. women must endure invasive tests and exams, wait 48 hours before they can undergo the procedure, take time off from work to visit the one facility in the state where abortion is still available and endure endless badgering and assault from protesters any time they try to enter a clinic they have a constitutional right to enter. they must face regular shaming from the republicans on this committee. almost all men, i may had, for making the choice to exercise their constitutional rights. yet there are no such restrictions for acquire ago

gun. you can walk into a gun show at noon and walk out 15 minutes late we are a high capacity magazine and semiautomatic rifle in your hands. no background check, no i.d. no way of making sure the gun purchase is going to someone with the proper safety training and no history of domestic violence. imagine if we made people jump through the same hoops to buy a firearm as they do for having an abortion. imagine an invasionive question about why are you getting the gun and whether or not you've considered your options. imagine the only way to get a gun was to prove through a police report that you've been raped or assaulted in the past or have a lawyer certify your life is in imminent physical danger unless you get a gun. think about being shamed and shouted at and forced to look at graphic images of gun violence as you walk into a gun shop. that outrage you feel, that nagging feeling that the government has no right to put any restrictions on your constitutional right, that is what a woman feels every time she tries to make a decision about her health and whether or not to access her constitutional right to an abortion. until this committee is ready to face the real crisis of gun

violence in our country, to take a firm stand that enough is enough and that it's time for real action, these proceedings will remain a hypocritical farce. miss frederickson, are you aware the center for medical progress obtained its nonprofit status from the irs by representing itself as a nonprofit based biomedical research and did not indicate political activities in their application and is this a fraud? is this illegal to provide false information to the irs. >> mr. nadler, yes to your first question they did, indeed. >> use your mic. >> they did, indeed, make that application and i do believe it is a fraud and illegal. >> thank you. my last question is at the moment, three house committees and one senate committee are investigating planned parenthood. the majority is proposed using taxpayer dollars to establish a select panel that would launch a fifth investigation. what do you make of the fact that the majority has committed resources to attacking planned parenthood and almost none to investigating alleged illegal activity at the center for medical progress. >> well, i think it indicates

the true agenda here is to undermine women's right to make personal decisions in consultation with her doctor and her family and exercise her constitutional rights to choose her own health care. >> as do the testimony of three witnesses who have nothing to say about planned parenthood but have to say about abortion generally. thank you very much. i yield back. >> >> i recognize the gentleman from iowa. >> thank you mr. chairman. just listening to the gentleman from new york about the same hoops to buy a firearm as there is to get an abortion i suggest in inn this city it's probably much easier to get an abortion than it is to buy a gun or possess one or transport one and that that's true also in many cities, including chicago, for example, where we've seen a lot of death and desecration that comes from violence that doesn't seem to be troubling the

minority party, either. but i'm looking through your testimony, miss frederickson and i noticed in your testimony you say that you list the numbers of life saving breast exams, the number of women whose cancer was detected early, 500,000 exams, 88,000 women whose cancer was detected early. very likely did save lives. i didn't notice -- oh, also that it had prevented an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies and 217,000 abortions every year. i hadn't seen planned parenthood produce a number that took credit for the number of abortions prevented -- excuse me, the number of abortions prevented. neither did i see in this testimony the number of abortions that planned parenthood does in a normal year. could you tell me what that number would be? >> i believe the number is about 350,000 per year. >> and what would the typical

price be for a typical abortion? >> i do not know. i do not work for planned parenthood. >> and could i just then state, i will, off of their web site, $1500. and when i punch through that my calculator it was 340,000 was the number i used and at $1500 each that turned out to be $510 million. and $510 million happens to be very close to identical to the exact number of the appropriations that would go into planned parenthood should the appropriations go forward which it has out of this house at least for a couple of months. it's hard for me to accept the idea that this is a nonprofit organization and i would turn to miss thayer and your testimony spoke to that. seeing those kind of numbers, miss thayer, could you be convinced planned parenthood is nonprofit? >> officially planned parenthood

is a nonprofit. but their main concern is really their bottom line. we would have monthly managers meetings via the very web cam system that they installed to do the abortions and on a spreadsheet they would have -- our goals, our quotas for every single service and supply that we had. if we met our goal, that square would be green. if we were 5% below, it would be yellow and if we were 10% below our quota it would be red and we would have to have a corrective action plan on how to correct that. and abortion was one of those items. if we didn't do abortions at that center then we had a goal for abortion referrals. >> could you say clearly here in your testimony with confidence that in your years working for planned parenthood that even though planned parenthood is filed as a nonprofit that they are profit driven?

>> well, they are all about the profit. for example, they purchase birth control pills for $2.98 a sickle. bill $35 a cycle, are reimburse l $26 and then they solicit from the very women that miss frederickson referred to as very low income at or below poverty level a $10 donation per cycle for each pill that goes out, each cycle of pills. >> that's clearly a distinct profit that most businesses would like to see in their margins. i'd like to turn to miss frederickson. i recall in your testimony you talked about the gap that would be created if we didn't fund planned parenthood. and would you say that there's no way to fill the gap of services that you testified that there's not a way to fill that gap some other way? >> i think we already have evidence that it is nearly impossible if not impossible to

fill that gap. the example from texas and louisiana where they have tried to cut back on flood services and found that they could simply not serve the population that needed those services. >> then tell me, if you would, how did planned parenthood grow into this "service" and into this gap that can't be created another way? are you submitting, then, that free enterprise and demand and transportation and funding and resources wouldn't grow another entity or two or three or four or five that would fill the same demand that you're saying planned parenthood only can fill. >> with all due respect, sir, we are talking about medicaid patients primarily who get these services so, no, i don't think they could be filled by the free enterprise system. >> what do you think would happen? >> unfortunately i think we'd have more unintended pregnanty and ultimately, unfortunately, more abortions. >> i just suspect that the witness hasn't considered how this comes together how free enterprise moves and accepts medicaid checks, et cetera, how

the clinic system works, how health care providers are able to take a look at the marketplace and supply a demand and i suggest that that(srnw woe supplied without any great concern and i would yield back. >> i thank the gentleman and i'll recognize myself for five minutes for questions. forgive me, i'll recognize miss jackson-lee for five minutes. >> let me thank you very much, all the witnesses. wherever we have witnesses to come it's appropriate for members of congress to thank you because we know the sacrifice you make to come. let me also say that this is a judiciary committee and it's important for us to be fact finding but also to maintain and adhere to current stated statutory or court law that have set precedent for the actions that may be in place now, obviously as legislators we have the right to make

determinations. let me also say that i respect and appreciate the differences of opinion that are in this room and among those in this audience and on the panel as well. i'm interested in the truth but i am one who has known people and have lived through the back alley abortions and seen so many people suffer and die because of choices that they intelligently wanted to make, debt prily had to make and did not have the adequate medical care, consultation that was needed. let me thank you, doctor, any time i see a doctor i want to thank you for taking the oath and recognizing the need for good care but i do want to go back to what this hearing is all about. are you representing -- understand you're under oath -- are you representing the video that you showed was a planned parenthood video? >> no, ma'am, i am not. the reason i brought that video

forward -- >> i have a short period of time. so that is not a planned parenthood video? >> that is not a planned parenthood video. >> and i want to make clear that the hearing is planned parenthood exposed, examining abortion procedures and medical ethics at the nation's largest abortion provider. miss thayer -- sorry, is that -- let me pronounce it correctly. are you a lawyer? >> no, ma'am. >> are you trained in nonprofit law? >> no, ma'am. >> would you then have a legal understanding of the rights, responsibilities of a nonprofit and what they're allowed to do? >> well, a ran a nonprofit -- >> but are you a lawyer that understands the law of nonprofits 501(c)(3)? >> no, but i did have an understanding that -- >> but not from a legal perspective? so you would not be able to discern the appropriate respond to federal funding being used for medicaid, health care matters versus things that you have now become opposed to, which is your right to do?

not from a legal perspective? >> one of my biggest concerns was why they were soliciting donation, reporting live fr donations, requiring donations from medicaid eligible women. i knew that wasn't right. >> is that something you're submitting to the women. you have statements from the medicaid women that were solicited? >> i did that everyday that i worked there. your pills are $35, the donation is $10, will it be cash or credit. >> will you be able to discern by the understanding of the bylaws of planned parenthood just what those requests might be is this they have every right to engage -- i'm not saying it's true -- in a voluntary perspective -- in a voluntary request that someone voluntarily may desire to do. but let me go to miss frederickson and set the tone for this particular hearing. it has been said by congressman chaffetz, the chairman of the oversight committee, among many hearings, that planned parenthood did, if i might quote correctly for the hearing

"violate no law." is roe v. wade the law of the land? >> yes, it is. >> is that the right for women to choose? >> yes. >> it's no billboard pronouncement that we're prom e promoting abortions, is that the case? the law is simply on the ninth amendment, the right to privacy? >> under the constitution, women have the right to make those personal decisions. >> not an advertisement in billboard for abortion? it's a right to privacy under the ninth amendment? >> yes. >> let me also say that the political agenda that has been framed, many of you have seen, i'm not going to ask you that question, but i'd like to focus on your understanding, miss frederickson, of what planned parenthood does. do they legitimately have health care for women? >> planned parenthood is our nation's leading providier of reproductive health care for women. they provide a critical service. one in five american women go to a planned parenthood clinic in their lifetime. >> let me pursue another line of questioning in order to make

sure we know that we have -- planned parenthood, excuse me, has a medical structure, as i understand it, abortion care is included in medical training and continued medical education. studies show abortion has 99% safe record but more importantly the 57,000 members of the american congress ofs on constitutions and gynecologist maintains the highest standards of clinical practice have indicated that that is the case and this there's misinformation about how abortions today are handled versus remember when i said back alley and coat hanger. are you familiar with that contrast of what women went through 20, 30 years ago versus what they're doing today? >> yes, i understand that before roe v. wade many women died in back alley abortions and that it's a tremendous advance in this country to have safe and legal abortions available for women. >> let me add the fourth amendment to my line of reasoning as well. but let me just ask this

question as i close. on this video, are you familiar the name mr. diliedin. >> yes. >> are you aware he has not released the entire video? >> i understand no member of this committee has seen the entire unedited video, yes. >> do you realize he's taken the fifth amendment, meaning not willing to come before any committee? >> yes. >> and do you also understand he stole the i.d. of a fellow classmate in high school who happened to be a feminist in order to portray these distorted political and biased videos? >> yes, i understand that is the case. >> if we are hear -- and i close mr. chairman i thank you for this -- to find the facts is it not factual that through all of the hearings we've not heard of any statement about planned parenthood in essence violating the law? roe v. wade constitutional amendments and the bill of rights. have you heard that? >> no, there's no one has been

able to substantiate any allegation of wrong ding against planned parenthood and indeed mr. chaffetz has agreed there is no wrongdoing. >> the gentlelady's time has expired? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> point of parliamentary inquiry? >> state your point. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to know what the proper procedure would be. i think this witness has just testified -- this hearing is entitled "flood exposed, examining abortion practices and medical ethics at the nation's largest abortion providier." this witness played a tape that he has now admitted under oath was not prepared in connection with planned parenthood at all and so i'd ask it be stricken from the record of this hearing. >> the chair is the judge of relevancy here and the gentlemen never suggested -- >> well, mr. chairman it was presented to a committee having a hearing on planned parenthood with the clear implication that it was relevant to the hearing. it's not. i make a motion to strike it from the record. >> would you also include in

your motion the gentleman from new york's testimony on gun control? >> new york's testimony was -- my motion is on the recording that the doctor presented that he admitted has nothing do with planned parenthood. i've made a motion, mr. chairman. >> well, mr. nadler made his comments about guns almost entirely -- >> mr. chairman, point of order. i've made a motion that that be stricken from the record of this hearing as irrelevant to a hearing on planned parenthood and i'd ask for a vote on many request. >> i'll second the motion. >> all those in favor say aye. would the gentleman restate his motion? >> the motion is to strike from the record the video of the doctor which was not prepared or generated in connection with any service by planned parenthood as not relevant. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman, there's been a vote. >> reserving my right to object, there was a nonconsent request to enter the information into the record. the gentleman had his opportunity to object at the time -- >> no, that is not true. >> -- at the time the information was --

>> i about to his motion at being -- >> that's not correct. it was not unanimous consent. >> i have unanimous consent. >> all those in favor say eye? >> aye. >> all those opposed? >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> the noes have in the the opinion of the chair. >> i ask for a recorded vote. >> i ask for a recorded vote. >> i wonder if we're going to be able to strike that video from your memory. >> i'm asking it be stricken from the record of this hearing. it ought to have relevance before people bring in a video that has nothing to do with a subject matter at hand. >> ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. >> recorded vote has been asked. the clerk will call the roll.

>> mr. chairman, regular order, can the clerk call the roll? mr. chairman? >> mr. goodlatte? mr. sensenbrenner? mr. smith? mr. chabot? mr. issa? mr. forbes? mr. king? >> no. >> mr. king votes no. mr. franks? >> no. >> mr. franks votes no. mr. gohmert? mr. gohmert votes no. mr. jordan?

mr. poe? mr. chaffetz? mr. marino? mr. gowdy? mr. labrador? mr. farren thold? mr. collins? mr. desan thys? miss waters? mr. buck? mr. ratcliffe? mr. trot?

mr. bishop? mr. conyers? mr. nadler? >> aye. >> mr. nadler votes aye. miss lofgren? >> aye. >> miss lofgren votes aye. miss jackson lee? >> eye. >> miss jackson lee votes aye. mr. cohen? >> aye. >> mr. cohen votes aye. mr. johnson? >> aye. >> mr. johnson votes aye. mr. peer louie see? miss chu? mr. deutch? mr. deutch votes aye. mr. gutierrez? mr. gutierrez votes aye. miss bass? mr. richmond?

miss dell benet? >> aye. >> miss dell benet votes aye. mr. jeffries? mr. cicilline? >> aye. >> mr. cicilline votes aye. mr. peters? >> mr. chaffetz? >> mr. chaffetz votes no. >> the gentleman from virginia. >> no. >> mr. forbes votes no. >> regular order, results, please? mr. labrador? >> mr. lab boar votes no. >> regular order, can we have the result?

mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman, regular order? >> mr. chairman? >> clerk will now -- >> mr. chairman? >> -- report the vote? mr. forbes? >> parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman? >> state your inquiry. >> mr. chairman, as i understand it, this is a motion to -- >> point of order in the middle of the roll call vote, you can't have a parliamentary inquiry. >> i'll ask for ruling for the chair and take time to ask with the parliamentarian. >> just report the vote. regular order, report the vote. >> the chairman can consider that. >> state your inquiry. >> i just wanted to ask if this was a motion to strike testimony of the witness or a video and if we had such motion -- because i don't recall ever having one in this committee where we were

striking testimony of witnesses that had been made in here. >> as i understand, mr. forbes, the minority is asking to strike the video which, of course, was given to them days ago and was not a surprise to them in any way. is that correct? >> it was given to us yesterday morning. >> that's the motion, yes. >> point of order. >> regular order, can we have the vote result? >> mr. chairman, this is regular order. >> the gentleman state his order. >> yes, sir. mr. chairman, i'll wait until they're quiet and then i'll state my parliamentary procedure once they've gotten quiet. okay, they're finally quiet. mr. chairman, have we had a procedure before for -- under our parliamentary rules to strike evidence of a witness because i don't ever remember one taking place. >> we've already taken a vote. >> i'm told not this in committee please announce the vote. >> mr. chairman -- >> mr. chabot?

>> mr. chabot votes no. mr. chairman, nine members voted aye, seven members voted no. >> then the motion is agreed to. >> i will now recognize myself for five minutes for questions. you know, one of the hallmarks of humanity throughout history is our astonishing proclivity as human beings to obscure rationalize away any contra veritable truth. in our own minds or before others to achieve some solidarity or temporary acceptance with our own insular peer group. it's always astonished me to

what links we go on this issue. and i think i know why. because we never really ask the central question. and the central question is does abortion kill a little baby. if abortion doesn't kill a little baby then i'm here to pretty much suggest that we shouldn't be having such a hearing or anything like that. but if abortion really does kill a little baby then those of us seated in the greatest nation in the history of the world, the land of the free and the home of the brave are sitting in the midst of the greatest human genocide in the history of humanity. and the victims are the most helpless of all children. we recently had a vote in the house of representatives to protect born alive children. there was no one person to my

left that voted for that bill. born alive children. and i would suggest that is if we've come to the moment in america where we know longer are willing to protect born alive children then it is time to reassess who we are and whether or not the founding fathers' dream still has any place in our society. if a child is born alive during an abortion procedure, a doctor has an ethical duty to save that child, correct? >> he does. he has an ethical duty to provide care, whether it's life saving or palliative. >> well, the president of planned parenthood, cecile richards has said in testimony that she had never heard of such a circumstance happening at planned parenthood clinics. do you believe that among the hundreds of thousands of abortions planned parenthood

commits every year that there are in fact children born alive but die because they do not receive appropriate care? >> i can't speak specifically from experience regarding planned parenthood in that regard. the reason i introduced a video was because planned parenthood has stated and we understood that they do perform late term abortions. it's been stated i believe by miss richards that they perform late term abortions up to viability but that was never defined so if you're going to be talking about late term abortions in terms of planned parenthood, you need to know what the techniques are, that's why i introduced the testimony that i did. >> well, based on your experience, what is your assessment of how low income women's health care could be met without planned parenthood? >> with all respect to miss.$ñ frederickson, her assertion that -- and backing it up with statements from other people that it is "ludicrous" were her

words that other providers could adequately take on planned parenthood patients, the statement itself is ludicrous. it's interesting. if you want to learn about low income women and health care you should come to southern new mexico where i've worked for over 13 years. here's a map. the planned parenthood facilities in new mexico are in albuquerque, santa fe, and farmington, the three richest areas in the state. there isn't a single planned parenthood south of boleyn county in new mexico and hasn't in a decade. the very area where i work. the county that i work in is one of the poorest counties of the country and if you want to understand about indigent care come to donna anna county please. miss richards talks about the health care that planned parenthood provides. specifically family planning counseling and contraception,

pregnancy tests, pap smears and breast exams. oh, and std testing which she did not in her testimony, informs her written testimony. those are the services they provide. let me tell you something, the poor people in my area get contraceptive counseling, pap smears, breast exams and truly comprehensive health care from our health care clinics. you've heard -- this committee has heard i know that there are over 16,000 health care clinics across the country. look at my map again. this is covering in new mexico in terms of those very same health clinics and unlike planned parenthood, they're not a 9:00 to 5:00 business monday through friday, they're there 24 hours a day to serve their women. and their women get taken care of not only if they need just pap smears or breast exams, they get taken care of if they have a headache or nausea or a stroke or a heart attack or all the other things that happen. that's what we call comprehensive health care and

that's what is available at these clinics. $500 million. as a doctored give you my opinion that $500 million poured into planned parenthood would be far better served, those women across the country would be far better served if where women could get truly comprehensive care. not just pap smears and breast exams. >> i thank the gentleman. and now i would recognize i believe mr. cohen from tennessee for five minutes. >> thank you, sir. >> miss lofgren, forgive me. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this hearing is disappointing in so many ways, it's really hard to begin. but let me just say that it is a myth to think that if we were able to defund planned parenthood, which i think legally we couldn't do, i mean, that there is the capacity to

provide the medical services to the women who are being served. and the last time that we had a hearing in this committee on this same subject, i put a letter into the record of that hearing from the california nonprofit clinics saying they do not have the capacity to pick up the caseload of planned parenthood just flat-out they could not do it. there's been a lot of discussion about abortion here today. and abortion is a very emotional subject for people in this country, and i think that is why we've ended up in the situation we have, which is there is no federal funding for abortion. there's no federal funding for abortion. and so if the effort to cut off funding for planned parenthood would succeed, we would cut off contraception, but we would not cut off abortion, which is an absurd result i must say.

you know, i have known women who have had abortions, and i've never met a woman who felt happy about it. this is not a festive occasion. it's a situation where women find themselves and they make a choice instead of the government telling them what to do. i think of the daughter-in-law of a dear friend of mine who had an abortion late in her pregnancy when she found out that the much wanted child she was carrying had all of her brains had formed outside of the cranium. this child was not going to live, and she and her husband were devastated but she was told by her physician that if she carried this child to term, not only would the child die, but she might die. and certainly she would never have the chance of having another child.

we think about the women all over the country who struggle with this decision and make a decision, but one of the important things is to provide for contraception so that women don't have to be faced with that terrible decision. and i do think that one of the most important things that planned parenthood does is to provide birth control to women who want to control their own fertility. and if we were to cut off funding for planned parenthood, that would not be available to the women, many women, who live in my community, in san jose and in gilroy, that would just not be available, and i think that would be a very wrong thing. now, i think there's been a lot of dirt in the air about the planned parenthood as an institution. i'll just say that planned parenthood in san jose is a well respected organization.

i know thousands of women who have told me how much they rely on planned parenthood, not only for pap smears and for birth control and for cancer screenings, but they even do some pediatric care. i mean, they're full service, and it's a really important institution and a well trusted institution in my district and that's what i hear from families and from women back home. now, this is in contrast to some of the things that have been said here in washington. you know, earlier in the oversight and government reform committee, there was a chart indicating that planned parenthood performed more abortions than lifesaving procedures in 2013. i wonder, miss fredrickson, did you look at that chart? did you see the hearing? >> no, i didn't see that chart. >> okay. i don't think that that's an accurate chart and, in fact, i think it's since been proven

that that is not correct. let me ask you about -- we've had all these hearings about planned parenthood. there's not been any evidence that planned parenthood has violated the law in any way. are you aware of any hearings that have been held about this cmp group, about whether they filed false tax returns, whether they were operating in compliance with the law? >> well, so far i don't believe there have been any congressional inquiries. i do believe there is a court case proceeding, however. >> i know that our attorney general in california is looking in to it since they incorporated there. i'll just close, mr. chairman, by saying that i hope that this is the end of the persecution of planned parenthood. it is important, the service they provide for the women of america, and i hope that we will stop trying to smear this wonderful institution. i yield back.

>> now, the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, is recognized. >> i make a motion that the video part of mr. levantino's testimony previously stricken from the record be made part of the record. >> all those in favor of the motion respond by saying aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it and the video is made a part of the record. and the gentleman is now recognized for his questions.

the gentle woman from california, miss walters, is recognized for five minutes. you're next. you want to pass or do you -- okay. the gentleman from ohio, mr. chavez, is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for holding this hearing. the gentle lady from california i have great respect for indicated that this hearing is disappointing, and it is certainly disappointing that we have to hold a hearing like this. about an organization that every year brutally kills hundreds of thousands of unborn, innocent babies and sells their body parts. and does that for profit. i happen to represent most of the city of cincinnati. and planned parenthood does

approximately 330,000 abortions, the largest abortion provider in this country, they basically wipe out the population of the city of cincinnati every year. it's about 300,000 people in that particular community. and it's just -- so it is very disappointing that we have to have a hearing like this and hear the testimony. miss fredrickson, you earlier said that -- i think your comment about mr. chaffetz something along the lines, well, it isn't against the law. and if that's the case, what the organization that you're here today testifying on their behalf today, if it's accurate that what you're doing, destroying little innocent unborn lives and selling their body parts for profit, if that's not against the law, well, we damn well better change the law and make it against the law because we're supposed to be a civilized society in a civilized country.

and to think that that kind of behavior is occurring in these modern times, it's -- it's -- it makes one wonder what the hell is going on in this country. it's disgusting. and when i saw these videos -- and i know the excuse is, oh, well, we didn't know we were being taped. i mean, what a -- what a defense. we didn't know that somebody might actually find out what's going on in planned parenthood facilities all over the country. that it might get out what's going on. i mean, that's a heck of a defense. and i -- and i -- some of the people that are here, you know, all the other three witnesses in particular, i think it takes a lot of courage to have -- to experience some of the things you experienced over the years and to be willing to come here and testify about what has happened. and thank god that you are willing to do that. all three, all the stories.

and, dr. levantino, i heard you testify in this committee in the past. and it's -- you know, thank you for coming forward and doing what you're doing now to expose what has occurred. i guess -- and i probably used up a lot of my time already. but, doctor, i guess, if you could, again -- and i know you already said it, but i think it bears -- it bears hearing it a second time. you know, in your past obviously you did perform abortions, and then at some point in your life decided that i'm not going to do that anymore. could you share, again, why that -- what it was that made that change for you? >> congressman, it was the loss of my own adopted daughter that made me look very seriously at what i was doing with abortions.

>> thank you. thank you. miss stoltenberg, you -- you indicated that you've -- and i know you got a whole bunch of other women that were in your circumstances, that their lives have been changed. would you want to share some of the stories of other women? you don't necessarily have to give their names, but what you heard from others and how this has affected their lives so that there's actually two victims here. there's the unborn child, and there's also the woman who has been a victim oftentimes in a planned parenthood facility since they're the largest abortion provider. but could you share in the brief time i have left anything you'd like to say about the other women you've talked to over the years about that. >> i would, sir. i've heard a lot here today about safe abortion. and all of these women's stories refute safe abortion. we are not having safe abortion in this country. women are being maimed. they are being harmed. they are not being able to have their own children because of it.

their children are dying on tables. they are turning to alcohol and drugs and suicide. i do post-abortion counseling. and i just counseled a woman in the prior months that has tried to kill herself three different times and almost succeeded. why aren't we talking about why this -- this is not safe. these are the stories to tell it. and there would be more stacked up here if women were not too ashamed and too afraid to come out and talk about this. and sometimes it doesn't happen for years. i wasn't able to talk about this for five years. there are women that won't be able to talk about it for 10 and 20 years. and i've heard multiple stories, hundreds, of how they have been maimed and wounded in every way. i can't even -- it was hard for me to even bond with my own child that i adopted because of this procedure.

i -- i'm just begging for you people to protect women. this is not a good choice for women. protect us. do the right thing. instead of looking at pocketbooks. i would like to ask the committee how many people are making -- are receiving donations from planned parenthood on their campaigns. and that saddens my heart, because would you choose that over protecting women? >> thank you very much. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. franks made a comment about a bill that was on the floor, about three, four weeks ago. born alive children bill. on that same day there was another bill on the floor to defend -- to defund planned parenthood. and nobody on this side voted for them. he's right.

and they didn't come to the subcommittee and they didn't go to the full committee for a mark up or for a hearing. because regular order did not apply because the pope was going to be here and we wanted to put the focus on this issue because it was politics. we're supposed to go to committees for hearings like we're having today, and if there's a bill -- and there's no bill here. this is just show business hearing, then there's supposed to be a mark up. there was none of that. it went straight to the floor. no amendments allowed in rules committee. so protocol was just done away with because of politics. just like benghazi was politics and kevin mccarthy told you it was politics and it accomplished its purpose of the woman who is going to lead the democratic party -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, i won't. but just like that and he admitted that's what they were doing and this planned parenthood is the same deal. they're having a special committee they've now set up and

yet representative chaffetz said that's not any evidence that there's been any law violated and there isn't and yet we're having a special committee. let me ask the doctor, you admitted that your video had nothing to do with -- nothing to do with planned parenthood, correct? >> the video that was shown was not shot at planned parenthood but may be relevant to procedures planned parenthood -- >> don't tell me about relevance. answer the question. it had nothing to do with planned parenthood? >> the video was not shot at planned parenthood. >> did you ever work for planned parenthood? >> yes, sir. >> when? >> when i was a resident. >> not when you were in private practice. >> no. >> you didn't do eight years working at planned parenthood. this is talked about medical ethics is what this is entitled examining abortion procedures and medical ethics. does anybody know one person that lost their medical license because of activity at planned parenthood? mr. stoltenberg, do you know of anybody that lost their medical license? no?

miss thayer, do you know of anybody that lost their medical license? >> no. >> doctor, do you know anybody that lost their medical license? >> i do not. >> medical ethics. case closed. second question, miss -- i don't have your name right. >> stoltenberg. >> stoltenberg. and i'm sorry for your problems that you've had and your history. your first abortion was at planned parenthood. >> that's correct. >> where was your second abortion? >> emma goldman's clinic. >> where was your third abortion? >> i believe it was at emma goldman's and i don't remember. >> and it's not planned parenthood, right? >> they do the same types of procedures there. >> a lot of places do the same procedure but this hearing is about planned parenthood, so your second and third abortions had nothing to do with planned parenthood, right? miss thayer, you now have a not for profit, responsible -- what's the name of your not for profit you run? >> cornerstone for life. >> do you draw a salary there? >> i get a stipend. >> a stipend.

>> what is that? >> $1,000 a month. >> you are considered, quote-unquote, a christian speaker. do you get paid to make your speeches or just expenses? >> usually i don't get paid at all. >> you get my expenses. >> i'm not being paid to be here. >> i know that. the government doesn't pay any of us too much. the fact is this hearing is just like benghazi. it's just like the select committee on planned parenthood, it's politics and yet we got major problems going on in this country. the whole idea that this is about planned parenthood is wrong and we've -- dr. levantino has admitted, medical ethics, everybody, there's no evidence of medical impropriety by planned parenthood, only a title that has been put up here. and miss stoltenberg, one-third of her history is planned parenthood. it's unfortunate this is the way we're spending our time. it's really unfortunate.

and i appreciate planned parenthood for what they do for lower income women. for women who need health services, who need family planning, who need cancer exams, cervical, breast, et cetera, and are performed by planned parenthood and i'm glad medicaid reimburses them and that's good. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, for his time. >> i have heard my name several times invoked. members, please be careful using this. the context of the comments that i made were in relationship to a hearing as the chairman of the oversight committee that i conducted. 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 the video. we didn't get into the practices that they -- that they do. we didn't get into the fetal body tissue issues. we didn't do that.

we were very narrowly focused on the finances. the point we were making is that planned parenthood had revenue of $127 million more than their expenses. and we started to look as a nonprofit organization on what people were making and how they were spending that money. they were sending money overseas. they were spending money and giving it to political organizations. they were -- have a lot of shared services. i think that's a legitimate question as we look at the finances of an organization that is structured as a nonprofit organization. i was asked a direct question about the finances. that's the way i took the question given that that's what the direction and the drive of the hearing was about. did we find any wrongdoing. the answer was no. >> would the gentleman yield? >> but to suggest -- i will in just one moment. just let me finish that thought.

it is inappropriate to suggest that i have come to some grand conclusion about every part of their operation. we did in the oversight and government reform committee, we did subpoena the videos. we have some of those videos in the safe. 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 was a temporary restraining order in california that would not release those videos. the judge recently ruled in our favor those videos are now being sent to congress. i don't -- they may have arrived in the last few hours. i'm just not aware of it. and then i will work with elijah 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 some conclusive investigation on all the actions of planned parenthood. did i look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as

to the revenue portion and how they spend? 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 sound like an organization that needs to be supplemented by taxpayer dollars. that was my point. i'm happy to yield. >> would the gentleman yield for a question? i just want to ask the representative whether or not you have any evidence whatsoever that planned parenthood has broken the law in any way? >> i think -- i think some of the video that's been out there, the rumors that have been swirling, some of the testimony that we've heard causes a lot of people to legitimately ask and dive into whether or not what they're doing is illegally. i think it's a very legitimate question from an objective point of view without getting the emotions of it.

and so i think there will continue to be investigations. i voted in favor of the select committee, which i think does have to go further and dive deeper into those issues. but i don't think that the final chapter has been written on that. my point was we were talking about specifically about the finances. and i would remind members, there was all this criticism, we were going after women. that is so false. what is the first not-for-profit organization that we went after in the oversight and government reform committee? it was the nfl. i called out the nfl. they were structured as a not-for-profit organization. we called out roger goodell for making an exorbitant salary and taking advantage of the tax code and, do you know what, the nfl to their credit restructured and for the first time i believe it started the 1st of july, they are now no longer a not-for-profit organization. so, in a very bipartisan way, with elijah cummings and the democrats, we worked on that issue and made a major transformation, a major change,

and i think looking at another not-for-profit organization who is taking a lot, hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, that's a legitimate decision in the context of an 18 plus trillion dollar debt. and that's the discussion we had. i'm proud of it. and i think we had a very good hearing. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mrs. stoltenberg, would you mind me having a look at one of the books that you have compiled? >> would you like me to bring it up to you? >> no, i'll send someone down to take a look at it. and while she's coming down to do that, let me ask dr. levantino 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 was -- that arose from incest or rape?

>> if i were a congressman, sir, i would support such a law. >> you would support a law that would ban abortions -- >> not ban allow. >> that would allow. so, you believe that it's -- a woman should have a right to choose in the case of incest or rape? >> if a woman is pregnant by incest or rape, her child is innocent all the same. morally i have a great problem with that. politically, i would vote for such a law. >> and what about you, mrs. thayer? >> two wrongs don't make a right. sperm meets egg. unique dna, 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.

>> well, actually, no, i didn't. >> you did not know that when you went to work? >> no, i started there as a clinic assistant and -- >> let me ask you this question. you are a woman who was fired by planned parenthood, and you are a disgruntled exemployee, is that correct? >> well, that's what they say. but i'm -- >> well, you were fired, correct? >> i was -- they were downsizing. >> and you are now disgruntled, is that not correct? >> no, that's not correct. >> so you love 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 that they should be defunded? >> indeed i do. i don't think one more dime of taxpayer money should go to an organization that's wrought with fraud. >> and thank you, miss thayer. you've got a lawsuit pending, by the way, do you? >> i do. whistle-blower.

>> it's a whistle-blower case if you win you'll make a lot of money. >> we haven't really talked about that. >> well, you'll make a lot of money if you win. take it from me. >> well, i don't need a lamborghini and my ford fiesta is paid for, so i don't know what i would do with that. >> well, money doesn't matter, though, to you. >> right. telling the truth is what matters. >> all right. okay. well, mr. levantino, as far as you know planned parenthood doesn't make political contributions, does it? >> i have no idea what contributions planned parenthood makes. >> or if they do make contributions. they don't, do they, mrs. frederickson? >> i am not familiar with the entire corporate structure of planned parenthood. >> you're not on. >> all right. well, doctor, are you aware of the stories of the many women who have -- whose lives have literally been saved by planned parenthood?

>> in what way, sir? >> well, that's not my question. my question is, are you aware of that being the case? >> hard to answer the question without knowing in what context you're asking it. >> okay. how about you, miss thayer? >> i guess i would ask the same question. >> okay. you don't want to answer the question, then. well, you haven't heard about the story of tiffany who was so broke that she couldn't afford a regular doctor's visit, so planned parenthood was her only option, and that a routine pap smear at planned parenthood diagnosed her with cervical cancer, the early discovery of which saved her life. you're not familiar with tiffany's case? >> i guess i would ask how much money they asked from tiffany after they did her pap smear. >> well, i'm sure that it was gladly payable for her life to be saved. >> it would be 50% of whatever her 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 at the little bit that she paid. but -- >> if she would have gone to a federally qualified health center it would have been free. >> maybe she could not have gotten transportation. >> well, in my town it's four blocks from the planned parenthood. >> that's in your neighborhood, though, but there are other people with different circumstances, and shouldn't you be concerned about them? >> well, there's 20 free clinics for every 1 planned parent hood compared to planned parenthoods they're everywhere. >> and 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 five minutes. would you yield back to me briefly? >> yes, i yield back. >> thank you. i just want to state for the record regarding the point miss thayer just made, in the state of georgia there are four planned parenthood locations.

most or all of which provide abortion services. in georgia there are 274 other health care alternatives that provide women's services that do not provide abortion, so in terms of convenience and location to get to, i think there would be a good argument that there's much more convenience to get to health care facilities -- these are public health care facilities that do not include abortion services. the gentleman -- >> thank you. reclaiming my time. miss thayer, i think there was some effort to cast doubt on your capability. 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's typically one probably per affiliate. >> really?

one lawyer per planned parenthood affiliate? >> yes. they do lobbying and they run the pac, you know, the political action committee.p.=g >> planned parenthood has a pac? >> yes, they make donations. >> and how many mammograms do those pacs do? >> zero. planned parenthood doesn't do mammograms. >> so if we cut funding for planned parenthood across the country, how many women would not -- would be denied mammograms? >> zero. >> but if we cut funding for planned parenthood, there would be some lawyers that do lobbying and some people that get political donations that would not be getting those political donations and lawyers that would have to look for some other form of money and financing, right? >> yes.

>> my friend from california indicated there was a myth that if we defund planned parenthood that we could provide services to all the women that planned parenthood had been helping. 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 the 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 hearts would break for the lawyers that would not be able to get the federal funding and be able to lobby and donate to our democratic friends.

i was so pleased with the comment from my friend from tennessee that benghazi was politics. that's exactly what we've been trying to get to. it was politics! you had people meeting here in america in washington while people were dying while ty woods was gathering david oven and glen doherty and going to 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 four people were killed while nobody in washington that knew what was going on lifted a finger. and why david oven doesn't even get an american plane, somebody else has to provide a plane. he's on a gurney and they're beating his leg blown off against the sides of that little plane while somebody in washington knows but they're doing nothing. you bet it was politics, and a lot of -- four 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 like if they're 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 american and protecting those people. my time's expired. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's remarkable to me that the two most important issues to the majority have now collided into one hearing. that a planned parenthood hearing has become a hearing on benghazi. yesterday the house created a select committee to investigate abortion practices meaning that today's hearing is even more pointless than it was before. the house judiciary committee is now one of four committees here in the house investigating planned parenthood. what exactly are we investigating today? let's be clear. no one said this yet but we just need to be clear about it. the goal of the majority is to return to a nation where roe v. wade is not the law of the land and where women do not enjoy the constitutional right that the supreme court made clear they have to make decisions about their own body.

that's what this is about. now i don't know why we're here. we're not here to talk about the fruitless investigations taken by six different states, including my own that have failed to find any legal wrongdoing. we're not here to discuss the fetal tissue donation. virtually every person in this country has benefited from research using fetal tissue and we're not here to discuss the federal court order issued this week mandating the center for medical progress turn over more misleading and fraudulent documentation. this hearing's only purpose is to smear a health care provider that serves millions of women a year, a provider that enjoys a higher approval rating among the american people than i would guess any member in this body enjoys. now as this committee contemplates the medical ethics of women's reproductive freedoms, what are in medical ethics of not holding any hearings on a gun violence

epidemic that claims the lives of 30,000 americans every year? what are the medical ethics of not holding a hearing on the 12,000 homicides and accidental gun deaths and 18,000 gun deaths by suicide every year and what are the medical ethics of states trying to ban pediatricians from discussing basic gun safety measures with parents. we've held zero hearings on a gun epidemic that claims american lives every day. an average of 88 americans die every day of guns. nor has it held a hearing on the mass shootings. not after tucson. not after aurora. not after newtown. not after santa barbara and none scheduled after roseburg. and not after any more of the 200 that have occurred in 2015 alone. october is domestic violence awareness month. in 2013 alone more than 1600 women were murdered by men and

94% of them were gun deaths. while this committee continues its redundant attacks over women's health it ignores the reality that every day american women are murdered due to domestic gun violence. yet as congress works to ensure that women face even more humiliating obstacles to safe and legal abortion access, the u.s. congress stands idly by as violent offenders are able to skirt background checks and get guns to commit horrific crimes. the american people are rightly frustrated with congress for failing to take any action, even the most basic action of closing the gun show loophole in the aftermath of so much devastation. there are dozens of bills that deserve hearings in this committee of their jurisdiction. this one. the judiciary committee. i don't have time to name them all. there's a bipartisan public safety and second amendment protection act introduced by congressman thompson and king that would close gun sale loopholes with comprehensive background checks.

congressman quigley's trace act that will empower law enforcement to stop the flow of guns to our streets by traffickers who make a living selling guns to criminals. there's congresswoman maloney's bill. there's my own legislation, the safe and responsible firearms transfers act to prevent guns from being sold without background checks. not one of those bills has been the subject of a hearing from this committee, mr. chairman. not even a hearing where the majority can bring in witnesses to tell us why bipartisan proposals supported overwhelmingly by the american people and gun owners are somehow too extreme. there's not been a single hearing in 114th congress on any common sense improvements to our gun laws. the american 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. self-imposed blindness. that's the self-imposed blindness that congress has to gun violence. he said that the humanity of the victims he hopes become so glaring that it moves an entire generation of the american people. i can only hope that the humanity of the victims of the thousands, tens of thousands of lives lost to gun violence might move this congress to finally take action. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho for five minutes. would he gentleman yield to me briefly? >> i'd 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, the enforcement, the prosecution for violations of all those laws are down by 30%.

it seems to me that an administration that's led by an individual who calls for more laws every time we have one of these tragedies ought to go look in the mirror and -- >> will you yield? >> i will not yield. >> perhaps we can have a hearing on that. >> it's a problem that can be addressed with the 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 1,000 -- nearly 1,000 a day. and that's why we're here focused on this hearing today to make sure we're aware of whether more laws are needed to protect the lives of the unborn. i yield back to the gentleman from idaho. >> thank you. it's hard to sit here and be

lectured about something like that when there's no concern for the lives of children, babies, babies born alive. doctor, can you tell me how many babies are aborted every single day. do you know? >> i have no idea. >> do you know? >> there's 13 in iowa every day. we think of as a kindergarten class every two days. >> do you know how many late-term abortions there are every day? >> not exactly. >> ms. frederickson? >> first 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 place every day. >> but you're an expert on this issue. >> i'm not here to talk about medical procedures. i'm here to talk about the law. >> okay. i was just lectured at the number of deaths, and i just wanted to know if the panel knew how many children who are being killed every single day that

we -- do you know? >> i believe it's almost 4,000 a day, not by planned parenthood but by the abortion industry. >> do you know how many late term or over 20 weeks? do you know those numbers? >> no. >> this is not simply a question of the legality of planned parenthood's actions. we may never find the answers to that question, whether they're legal or not legal, but reducing human beings to commodities by selling fetal body parts for profit, i think everyone should agree is morally reprehensible. based on the testimony presented today it would also appear that planned parenthood has participated in other suspicious behaviors and all of that at the expense of the american taxpayers. i'm not convinced that planned parenthood would cease to exist without taxpayer funding. i am not convinced that revoking taxpayer money for planned parenthood would disadvantage women's health 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 area. one in southeastern idaho. and if you look next to that it has 129 better health care alternatives. all three of these centers are within 136 miles of each other in a massive state that stretches for thousands of miles and includes a vast amount of rural areas. according to planned parenthood's own data, the three centers serve around 7,000 patients in 2013. alternatively, the state of idaho has 76 federally qualified health center service sites that served a little over 138,000 patients in 2013. look at that. the difference between 3,000 and 76,000. the difference between 7,000 patients and 138,000. so anybody who is making the argument that they're not going to receive health care is really lying to this committee.

these service sites cover a much broader cross section of the state and have the capacity to serve a diverse population of idahoans seeking medical care. ms. frederickson, 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. they provide family planning counseling and contraceptive care, as well as cervical cancer tests and breast exams. >> and how is that different than the other federally qualified health centers? >> 2.7 million women use the planned parenthood facilities every year. it's an absolutely critical part of our health care infrastructure. >> but more women use the other federal health centers. is that not correct? >> public health experts say there's no way the public health system can absorb the capacity that would be lost if planned parenthood was not funded. >> the numbers just don't speak to that.

>> i defer to the experts, as i think congress should. >> name one expert. >> i named in my testimony. >> can you name one right now? >> the american public health association. >> okay. thank you. took you a couple of seconds there. >> the chair recognized the gentleman mr. gutierrez for five minutes. >> first of all, it's legal in the united states of america to have an abortion. it's the law of the land. and we all took an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of this land. and i'm going to do that. now it's clear to anybody listening to this procedure that this is about planned parenthood, which planned parenthood offers abortions. but they're not doing anything illegal when they do it, and no one here has testified they're doing anything illegal. they object to the fact they

offer abortions because that's their point of view. they don't like the law. they can't change the law. they can't undercut the constitution of the united states and the supreme court. what do they do? they try 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 who it is we receive campaign contributions from. from here forward, we should just open it up, mr. chairman, every time. on any issue. i want to know how much you get from the nra. i want to know every dollar you receive from every -- we should just open it up. that would make a great -- i'm not that worried about it. i tell the women of america, you are safe because you have a president of the united states that will veto any legislation that comes out of this committee and might make it to the floor

of the house. we'll veto that legislation and there's nothing you can do about it. he'll veto that legislation and it will be safe. they can't pick. they have 250 members and can't figure out how to pick the speaker of the house. you think they'll turn back the clock on women in america? they can't even pick their own leader. i'm not that worried about where we're going. but i will stand up for women because it seems what we're really talking about here today is turning back the clock. turning back the clock, a clock in which i grew up -- when i was born in the united states of america, separate but equal was still the law of the land when i was born. the only day i was white was the day i was born and they put it on my birth certificate. apart from that i was never treated equal. certainly separate but not equal to everybody in this country. and women, yes, had to go to back alleys and cross state lines and had to lose their lives in order to get reproductive health care rights in this country. that's true.

we all know it. but let me just suggest the following. my mother's only option was the one option the government of the united states gave her. which was sterilization. and for hundreds of thousands of puerto rican women, that was the only option. there were other options that my wife and i had. we have two wonderful daughters. two brilliant -- and let me just say something. i respect my daughters. and i trust my daughters to make decisions as i do for all women in this country. and we should all respect women to make the decisions that they fundamentally have to make about their lives and their future. moreover, there's an eight years difference between my first child and my second child. and the reason was because my wife had control over her productive system. and she could have a life and she could take her education and she could have a life and have a career and she could be

everything that she can be. my mom didn't have that ability. and my daughters have greater rights and greater abilities. and i will be damned if i am going to allow on my watch for the rights of women, especially the women that are so important to me in my life, to be turned back that clock. we'll not turn back the clock. as much as you wish to turn back the clock. gay people are not going back in the closet. latinos and asians and immigrants aren't going to disappear. and women are not going to get back alley abortions and put their lives at risk again while americans are standing up for a better more inclusive future for everybody in this country. so, look. nothing here that any of the witnesses have said, even those afforded by the minority is going to change anything. we're good. we're in a good place because there is a new growing coalition in america.

we all know what it is. it's people who care about mother earth. it's people who care about women and their rights. people that care about gays and lesbians and immigrants. it's people who care about making sure we have fair and decent salaries. and you want to know something? donald trump likes to talk about the polls. well, i've got a poll. and in my poll, the vast majority of american people want to move forward and not turn back the clock. thank you very much, mr. chair. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. would you yield to me very briefly? i just want to make one point that when we passed the pain capable abortion act, we introduced into the record evidence that in every demographic group, men, women, people of various races, age, in

every demographic group, a majority of the people in this country support prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. i thank the gentleman and yield back. >> thank the chair. i want to try to get back on the subject that we've been talking about. mr. johnson, on the other side, asked, does planned parenthood do political contributions. if i remember the testimony, two of you said that he -- that planned parenthood didn't give contributions to anyone. do you know whether planned parenthood contributes to federal candidates? >> yes, they do. they have a pac. >> and it's -- what is the name of the pac? >> i don't remember. just called it the pac. >> planned parenthood pac? >> uh-huh. >> would it surprise you in election cycle 2014 planned

parenthood pac contributed a little over $400,000 to federal candidates? >> no, that wouldn't surprise me at all. >> 138 federal candidates. that surprise you or not? >> no. >> $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 could do for it is take some of that money and put doctors or nurse practitioners in their rural centers. in planned parenthood in iowa, we had a nurse practitioner two hours a week. in my almost 18 years there, we had a doctor in the facility probably three or four times. so all those pills are being dispensed by nonmedical people. that would be a much better use of their money. >> and since the minority did bring it up, mr. chairman, i'd like to introduce in the record the open secrets document of contributions by planned parenthood pac. >> without objection it will be made a part of the record.

>> the talk has also been about -- and i resent the other side talking about generalizing those of us over here are against women. i resent that. i have four children, three daughters, 11 grandkids, seven daughters. one of those is adopted. and 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 women coming into the world. what about those women. and i think they're women when they're harvested for their body parts. i'm concerned about 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 congress doesn't speak for them, who speaks for them? i mean, you all speak for them. so i know that's not the issue. the issue is planned parenthood. it's also, i think, planned parenthood seems to do a pretty good job of marketing planned parenthood. would you agree with that? >> you have any idea how much money planned parenthood spends on marketing planned parenthood? >> in iowa, they marketed the family planning waiver. spent lots and lots of money at the expense of staff raises that year and made it sound like the family planning waiver was their own creation, and it was actually state dollars. >> i'm going to apologize to you for insinuation that you did something wrong by being a whistleblower and you're being attacked because you talked

about or brought evidence about an organization. that's what we do, unfortunately. we attack whistleblowers across the board, it seems like. also the comment was made 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'm from. and most of these -- can't see them too well. they'll be on the far right on the screen. the planned parenthood areas are in the metropolitan areas. 38 of them. but most of texas is not in the metropolitan area. the state is a vast state. there are parts on the side with all the white dots where we have federally funded health care centers. i'd submit to you and to the record, there are places in texas that there are federally

funded health care centers that aren't on google maps. they're in remote districts or in west texas in small little towns. so that's not an accurate portrayal of women's health care in the country. the federally funded health care units are everywhere. rural, city, and planned parenthood in texas, anyway, is just in the metropolitan areas. is that the way you understand it? >> the really -- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. she'll be allowed to answer. >> it's important to remember that all those fqhcs have doctors there and they don't charge medicaid eligible women, unlike planned parenthood. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me just clear up some things. mr. chairman, you volunteered some statistics on how many gun laws we have. that's exactly why we're asking for a hearing. this committee could do great things.

if we had a hearing on gsa's failure to meet the needs of the judiciary which was the cost of building of courthouse in members destruct. so we really could do big things but we waste it on things like this. and my colleague on the other side saying what he resents. i resent a whole bunch of stuff. if people say you oppose women, i didn't say it but that's between you and women. i don't have you saying that planned parenthood may or may not have donated to someone affects 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 unbelievable. this year in the state of the union, the president mentioned 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 announces it's at 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 it by doing a law. the rich will fly out of the country and still have them. the poor will go in the alleys and risk their lives so they can have them or we can invest in prenatal care, pay parental leave, invest in our foster care system, raising the minimum wage so women can raise a child. we can do all of those things, but we're not because we're so stuck on saying that i'm pro-life. yeah, until the baby is born. and then when the baby is born you're like, you're on your own. we're not going to help you do anything. so if we're going to have a conversation, and it's if it's roe v. wade, we can't do anything about it. as much as the other side would like to be the president and how

to handle immigration and benghazi, you're not the president. as much as you'd like the court to overturn roe v. wade, none of you are on the supreme court. but you're able to run for president and able to express an interest in the supreme court. but we in congress have a bunch of things we could be working on and have a meaningful hearing to figure out how we get to the ultimate decision -- ultimate desire that we want. and if it's zero abortions, then let's talk about how we get there. you know you'll not overturn roe v. wade. so i just hate that we come here and we drag witnesses here and put them in the position of testifying on things that they can't control just so we can do messaging. and that is the problem in this country when we can be actually trying to accomplish something.

and we keep talking about benghazi. i'm okay with letting the facts play out how they'll play out because i think it is important for the american people to see how government works and when there's something wrong, you figure out what went wrong and there's something wrong, you figure out what went wrong and try to fix it. but it's too often we try to play gotcha moments when there are no gotcha moments instead of being respective for the deceased, the people that give their life for this country and trying to figure out how to prevent things like that from happening again. so, you know, let me just say, and i'll ask since i do have a minute, do you think that if the law just said you can't have an abortion that we'd go to zero abortions? >> no, i don't believe we would but i believe there are many women dying today from legal abortions because there are more abortions being done than when

it was back alley and more women maimed and hurt and harmed like i was. >> do you think the law of the land would have made a decision on your decision? >> i don't understand. >> if it was illegal then, do you think it would have made a difference in your decision? >> in my decision? defini definitely. i would not have an abortion and be able to see who my children are today. >> but you do agree some women would? >> ex-- >> would have it. even though -- if it was roe v. wade was reversed, you agree that some women would still have them in back alleys? >> would have abortions? >> yes. >> probably yes. >> and the rich would still fly out of country and have them in other places? >> possibly they could but there would be many lives that would be spared. many. >> mr. chairman, i see my time's expired so i'll yield back. >> recognize ms. delbene from

washington. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'm deep disappointed that this committee is holding another one-sided hearing more about politics than fact finding. the attacks on women's health just never seem to stop. meanwhile, we are ignoring a long list of bipartisan policies that deserve our attention. right now we could be talking about the much-needed updates to e-mail privacy laws. we could be talking about leveling the playing field for brick and mortar stores or we could finally get to work on our country's broken immigration system. but instead, we're wasting even more time on an investigation that the majority clearly prejudged before receiving a shred of evidence from planned parenthood. it's shameful, mr. chairman. this committee should be focused on facts, not ideology. and so far there are no facts to substantiate the claims made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, no evidence that

planned parenthood has engaged in unlawful activity. period. so let's talk about what we do know. we know that 2.7 million americans receive essential health care 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 34,000 cancer screenings. and 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 abortion pros vided in this country attacking planned parenthood is certainly not the way to do it. but that the point, it's clear that this investigation isn't about gathering facts at all. it's just part of an extreme ideological agenda to defund

planned parenthood and take away a woman's constitutional right to choose. miss frederickson, your testimony mentions that planned parenthood provides birth control and family planning, family planning counseling to 2.1 million patients each year. could you speak about how women's access to birth control is related to their economic security? >> absolutely. it's 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 american economy, unfortunately, but they're on their way. women are doing better, able to provide better for their families by ensure that they have the families that they can at the time when they want to have families or not to have children when they don't want to have children. >> and what would be the impact on women if access to birth

control through planned parenthood would be restricted? >> well, there would be many more unintended pregnancies and ultimately many more abortions so the consequences of defunding planned parenthood would lead to an increase of abortions in this country and undermine access to care and undermine their ability to earn a living and control their own economic well being. >> and so you believe that it would be harder for women to plan families, careers if congress decided to defund the organization? >> it's been a vital part of women being able to have independence, to be able to exercise -- to determine their own fertility, to determine when and whether they have children. it allows them to enter into the work force. it enables them to take care of the children that they have. it enables them to be treated more fairly in the workplace because they do have the choice about whether and when to have

children. >> and my colleagues have been across the aisle have been talking about how if planned parenthood wasn't -- if planned parenthoods were not available in the regions it would have no impact on women's access to health care. what would be the impact on women throughout our country if planned parenthood was not available for health care? >> well, i think the fact that already we have discussed how 1 in 5 american women, that's 20% of american women in their lifetime will use planned parenthood services. that's an enormously large number and 2.7 million people per year used planned parenthood's services. the loss of those -- the ability to use a planned parenthood health center would be enormous. >> and i think you referenced a study that says that there are not other community health centers or other places who would be able to serve that same population. >> right. the expert opinion of the american public health association says that there's just not the ability to absorb that capacity.

that those women would just go unserved. >> that are have ynk you very m. mr. chair, i yield back. >> chair now yields to mr. jaf ris from new york for five years. >> thank you, mr. chair. you know, this is an enormous waste of taxpayer money for us to sit 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 nothing more than a political hit job on a woman's right to choose. which, by the way, is

constitutionally protected. and i've got the benefit of being one of the least senior members here and so i get to sit through much of the hearing and there are only one or two of us left. and this hearing has gone on for hour after hour after hour. and yet, no one has presented a shred of evidence, a scintilla of evidence that planned parenthood has done anything wrong. so i've got 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 proyeed yours in medical ethics at the nation's largest abortion provider. doctor, you're the only doctor on the panel. correct? >> yes, sir. >> do you have any 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. >> an you're the only doctor on the panel. correct? >> correct. >> is anyone else on the panel have any evidence that someone violated their medical ethics? >> well, i would consider it a violation of medical ethics to do web cam abortion without ever seeing the client. >> okay. i appreciate -- >> or expecting nonmedical people to do medical procedures with no -- >> let's have a discussion. >> okay. >> you were at planned parenthood for 18 years? >> yes. just about. >> you were terminated? >> yes. >> and one of my colleagues asked whether you were a disgruntled employee. correct? >> that already came up, yep. >> an you disagreed with that characterization, i assume, correct? >> i did. they were down sizing. let me did. >> now, you alleged that planned

parenthood was wrought with fraud. is that correct? >> correct. >> and in fact, you have brought a federal court action claiming that they have engaged in fraud. true? >> correct. false claims act. >> now under the false claims act, you would be what is called a relater. correct? >> correct. >> and the government is intervened in that action, true? >> what? >> the government intervened in that action. >> yes. >> okay. and this was brought where? in the southern district of way? >> correct. >> correct? >> uh-huh. >> now, you testified earlier that you had no idea if you prevailed whether you would receive monetary benefit. did i hear that correct? >> i said we hadn't discussed it, with my attorneys. >> you have not discussed that with your attorney? >> no, sir. >> okay. now, you allege in this action that planned parenthood engaged in m